Background: In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a rapid increase in telemedicine visits. Otolaryngology patient satisfaction with these visits has not yet been extensively studied using a validated survey. Methods: All patients who had telemedicine visits with three head and neck surgeons, by phone or video-based platform, between March 25, 2020 and April 24, 2020. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted to determine demographic, disease and treatment information. Patients who had a video visit were contacted by telephone and, if they could be reached and consented, were administered the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ).Results: 100 surveys were completed. The average score across all questions was 6.01 on a scale from 1-7, where 7 indicated the highest level of patient agreement. The highest scores were for questions related to satisfaction with telehealth (6.29), while the lowest were related to reliability (4.86). Conclusions: Patients are generally highly satisfied with telemedicine.

Background : Testing for SARS-CoV-2 is important for decision making prior to surgery in otolaryngology. An understanding of current and developing testing methods is important for interpreting test results.Methods : We performed a literature review of current evidence surrounding SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing highlighting its utility, limitations, and implications for otolaryngologists.Results : The currently accepted RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 has varying sensitivity according to which subsite of the aerodigestive tract is sampled. Nasal swab sensitivities appear to be about 70%. Chest CT imaging for screening purposes is not currently recommended.Conclusion : Due to the current sensitivity of RT-PCR based testing for SARS-CoV-2, a negative test cannot rule out COVID-19.  Full PPE should be worn during high risk procedures such as aerosol generating procedures even if testing is negative. Patients who test positive during screening should have their surgeries postponed if possible until asymptomatic and have tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Objective : To investigate olfactory dysfunction (OD) in patients with mild COVID-19 through patient-reported outcome questionnaires and objective psychophysical testing.Methods : COVID-19 patients with self-reported sudden-onset OD were recruited. Epidemiological and clinical data were collected. Nasal complaints were evaluated with the sino-nasal outcome-22 (SNOT-22). Subjective olfactory and gustatory status was evaluated with the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHNES). Objective OD was evaluated using psychophysical tests.Results : Eighty-six patients completed the study. The most common symptoms were fatigue (72.9%), headache (60.0%), nasal obstruction (58.6%) and postnasal drip (48.6%). Total loss of smell was self-reported by 61.4% of patients. Objective olfactory testings identified 41 anosmic (47.7%), 12 hyposmic (14.0%), and 33 normosmic (38.3%) patients. There was no correlation between the objective test results and subjective reports of nasal obstruction or postnasal drip.Conclusion : A significant proportion of COVID-19 patients reporting OD do not have OD on objective testing.

BackgroundTracheotomy, through its ability to wean patients off ventilation, can shorten ICU length of stay and in doing so increase ICU bed capacity, crucial for saving lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, there is a paucity of patient selection criteria and prognosticators to facilitate decision-making and enhance precious ICU capacity.MethodsProspective study of COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheotomy (n=12) over a 4-week period (March-April 2020). Association between pre- and post- operative ventilation requirements and outcomes (ICU stay, time to decannulation, and death) were examined.ResultsPatients who sustained FiO2≤50% and PEEP≤8cm H2O in the 24h pre-tracheotomy exhibited a favourable outcome. Those whose requirements remained below these thresholds post-tracheotomy could be safely stepped down after 48h.ConclusionSustained FiO2≤50% and PEEP≤8cm H2O in the 48h post-tracheotomy are strong predictive factors for a good outcome, raising the potential for these patients to be stepped down early, thus increasing ICU capacity.

The COVID-19 epidemic was not the first coronavirus epidemic of this century and represents one of the increasing number of zoonoses from wildlife to impact global health. SARS CoV-2, the virus causing the COVID-19 epidemic is distinct from, but closely resembles SARS CoV-1, which was responsible for the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2002. SARS CoV-1 and 2 share almost 80% of genetic sequences and use the same host cell receptor to initiate viral infection. However, SARS predominantly affected individuals in close contact with infected animals and health care workers. In contrast, CoV-2 exhibits robust person to person spread, most likely by means of asymptomatic carriers, which has resulted in greater spread of disease, overall morbidity and mortality, despite its lesser virulence. We review recent coronavirus-related epidemics and distinguish clinical and molecular features of CoV-2, the causative agent for COVID-19, and review the current status of vaccine trials.

Hunter Skoog MD1, Kirk Withrow MD1, Harishanker Jeyarajan MD1, Benjamin Greene MD1, Hitesh Batra MD2, Daniel Cox MD3, Albert Pierce MD4, Jessica W. Grayson MD1, William Carroll MD1

Background: Objective data on chemosensitive disorders during COVID-19 are lacking in the Literature.Methods: Multicenter cohort study that involved four Italian hospitals. 345 COVID-19 patients underwent objective chemosensitive evaluation.Results:  Chemosensitive disorders self-reported by 256 patients (74.2%) but the 30.1% of the 89 patients who did not report dysfunctions proved objectively hyposmic. 25% of patients presented serious long-lasting complaints. All asymptomatic patients had a slight lowering of the olfactory threshold. No significant correlations were found between the presence and severity of chemosensitive disorders and the severity of the clinical course. On the contrary there is a significant correlation between the duration of the olfactory and gustatory symptoms and the development of severe COVID-19.Conclusions: patients under-report the frequency of chemosensitive disorders. Contrary to recent reports, such objective testing refutes the proposal that the presence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction may predict a milder course, but instead suggests that those with more severe disease neglect such symptoms in the setting of severe respiratory disease.

As COVID-19 continues to challenge the practice of head and neck oncology, clinicians are forced to make new decisions in the setting of the pandemic that impact the safety of their patients, their institutions and themselves.  The difficulty inherent in these decisions is compounded by potentially serious ramifications to the welfare of patients and healthcare staff, amid a scarcity of data on which to base informed choices. This paper explores the risks of COVID-19 incurred while striving to uphold the standard of care in head and neck oncology.  The ethical problems are assessed from the perspective of the cancer patient, healthcare provider, and other patients within the healthcare system.  While no single management algorithm for head and neck cancer can be universally implemented, a detailed examination of these issues is necessary to formulate ethically sound treatment strategies.

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented need for critical care intervention. Prolonged intubation and mechanical ventilation has resulted in the need for tracheostomy in some patients. The purpose of this international survey was to assess optimal timing, technique and outcome for this intervention.MethodsAn online survey was generated. Otorhinolaryngologists from both the United Kingdom and Abroad were polled with regards to their experience of tracheostomy in COVID-19 positive ventilated patients.ResultsThe survey was completed by 50 respondents from 16 nations. The number of ventilated patients totalled 3403, on average 9.7% required a tracheostomy. This was on average performed on day 14 following intubation. The majority of patients were successfully weaned (mean 7.4 days following tracheostomy).ConclusionThe results of this brief survey suggest that tracheostomy is of benefit in selected patients. There was insufficient data to suggest improved outcomes with either percutaneous versus an open surgical technique.

Background: An increasing number of COVID-19 patients worldwide will probably need tracheostomy in an emergency or at the recovering stage of COVID-19. We explored the safe and effective management of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients, to benefit patients and protect healthcare workers at the same time.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 11 hospitalized COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy. Clinical features of patients, ventilator withdrawal after tracheostomy, surgical complications and nosocomial infection of the healthcare workers associated with the tracheostomy were analyzed.Results: All the tracheostomy of 11 cases (100%) were performed successfully, including percutaneous tracheostomy of 6 cases (54.5%) and conventional open tracheostomy of 5 cases (45.5%). No severe postoperative complications occurred, and no healthcare workers associated with the tracheostomy are confirmed to be infected by SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion: Comprehensive evaluation before tracheostomy, optimized procedures during tracheostomy, and special care after tracheostomy can make the tracheostomy safe and beneficial in COVID-19 patients.

Background: Guidelines for ultrasonic devices use are imperative because infectious aerosols arising from airway procedures were a key etiologic factor in prior coronavirus outbreaks. This manuscript aims to summarize the available recommendations and the most relevant concepts about the use of ultrasonic scalpel during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods: Literature review of manuscripts with patients, animal models or in vitro studies where the ultrasonic scalpel was used and the plume produced was analyzed in a quantitative and/ or qualitative way. Discussion: Activated devices with tissue produces a biphasic bioaerosol composed (size 68.3 - 994 nm) of tissue particles, blood, intact and no viable cells, and carcinogenic or irritant hydrocarbons (benzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene, heptene, and methylpropene). Conclusion: It is imperative to use an active smoke evacuator, to avoid ultrasonic scalpel use in COVID-19 positive patients and in upper airway surgery, as well as to follow the protection recommendations of the guidelines for management this type of patients.

Judy Overton, BFA, MLAProgram Manager, Office of Patient Experience OfficerThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterT. Boone Pickens Academic Tower1400 Pressler StHouston, Texas 77030 Kathy Denton, BS, MED, PhDThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center,Director, Patient ExperienceThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterT. Boone Pickens Academic Tower1400 Pressler StHouston, Texas 77030 Michael Frumovitz, MD, MPHGynecologic Oncology and Reconstructive MedicineThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterDan L. Duncan Building1155 Pressler StHouston, Texas 77030 Carol Lewis, MD Department of Head and Neck SurgeryThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterT. Boone Pickens Academic Tower1400 Pressler StHouston, Texas 77030 Sarah Christensen, MADirector, Patient EducationThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterDan L. Duncan Building1155 Pressler StHouston, Texas 77030 Jaymesson Bezerra, MSHAManager, Patient RelationsThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterRotary House International 1600 Holcombe BlvdHouston, Texas 77030 Chris HernandezExec. Director, Patient Services, Patient AdvocacyThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterAnderson West1515 Holcombe BlvdHouston, Texas 77030 Michele S. WalkerAssoc. Dir, Pt Advo & Pt Rel, Patient AdvocacyThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterAnderson West1515 Holcombe BlvdHouston, Texas 77030 Janice P. Finder, BSN, MSN, RNDirrector, Patient Exp Clin Services, askMDAndersonThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterMid Campus Building 1MC7007 Bertner AvenueHouston, Texas 77054 Ashlyn A. Proske, BSProgram Manager, askMDAndersonThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterMid Campus Building 1MC7007 Bertner AvenueHouston, Texas 77054 Sanchita Jain, MBAInnovation Strategist, InnovationThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterMid Campus Building 1MC7007 Bertner AvenueHouston, Texas 77054 Julai Whipple, BAInnovation Designer, InnovationThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterMid Campus Building 1MC7007 Bertner AvenueHouston, Texas 77054 Wendi L. Martinez, ADN, BSN, RNDir QA & Perf Improvement, Inst Cancer Care InnovationThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterMid Campus Building 1MC7007 Bertner AvenueHouston, Texas 77054 Jarod EskaInst Cancer Care InnovationThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterMid Campus Building 1MC7007 Bertner AvenueHouston, Texas 77054 Elizabeth W. Sutherland, MPASPhysician Asst, Surgical OncologyThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterT. Boone Pickens Academic Tower1400 Pressler St.Houston, Texas 77030 Lisa L. Triche, DNP, MS, RNAdvanced Prac Registered Nurse, Pediatrics - Patient CareThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterAnderson East1515 Holcombe BlvdHouston, Texas 77054Elizabeth A. Garcia, BSN, MPA, RNAssoc VP, Patient Experience, Ofc of Chief Operating OfficerThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center1515 Holcombe BlvdUnit 1485Houston, Texas 77030Corresponding Author:Randal Weber, MD Chief Patient Experience Ofc, Chief Patient Experience OfficerThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterT. Boone Pickens Academic Tower1400 Pressler StHouston, Texas 77030