Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Describe safety practices for performing in-office laryngology procedures during clinical re-introduction amidst the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: An anonymous survey in Qualtrics was created to evaluate demographics, preprocedure testing, practice settings, anesthesia, and personal protective equipment (PPE) use for five procedure categories (non-mucosal-traversing injections, mucosal-traversing injections, endoscopy without suction, endoscopy with suction/mucosal intervention via working channel, and laser via working channel). The survey was emailed to the Fall Voice Community on Doc Matter and to members of the American Broncho-Esophagological Association (ABEA) from May to June 2020. RESULTS: Eighty-two respondents were analyzed (response rate: 10%). Respondents represented diverse locations, including international. Most reported academic (71%) or private practices (16%), laryngology fellowship training (76%), and a significant practice devotion to laryngology and broncho-esophagology. During the early re-introduction, most continued to perform all procedure categories. The office was preferred to the OR setting for most, though 36% preferred the OR for laser procedures. There was a preference for preprocedural SARS-Cov2 testing for procedures involving a working channel (>67%), and these procedures had the highest proportion of respondents discontinuing the procedure due to COVID-19. Various types of topical anesthesia were reported, including nebulizer treatments. The most common forms of personal protective equipment utilized were gloves (>95%) and N95 masks (>67%). Powered-air purifying respirators and general surgical masks were used infrequently. CONCLUSIONS: During the early re-introduction, respondents reported generally continuing to perform office laryngology procedures, while greater mucosal manipulation affected decisions to stop procedures due to COVID-19, perform preprocedural SARS-Cov2 testing, and alter topical anesthesia. Gloves and N95 masks were the predominate PPE. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.