Importance: The rapidly expanding 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus) has challenged the medical community to an unprecedented degree. Physicians and healthcare workers are at added risk of exposure and infection during the course of the patient care. Due to the rapid spread of this disease through respiratory droplets, healthcare providers such as otolaryngologists-head & neck surgeons who come in close contact with the upper aerodigestive tract during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures are particularly at risk. Here we present a set of safety recommendations based on our review of literature and communications with physicians with first-hand knowledge of safety procedures during the 2019 COVID-19 pandemic.Observations: A high number of healthcare providers were infected during the first phase of the pandemic in Wuhan province. Subsequently, by adopting strict safety precautions, other regions were able to achieve high levels of safety for healthcare providers without jeopardizing the care of patients. We reviewed the most common procedures related to the examination and treatment of upper aerodigestive tract diseases. Each category was reviewed based on the potential risk imposed to healthcare workers. Specific recommendations were made, based on the literature, when available, or consensus best practices. Specific safety recommendations were made for performing tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients. Conclusions and Relevance: Preserving highly skilled healthcare work force is a top priority for any community and healthcare system. Based on the experience of healthcare systems in Asia and Europe, by following strict safety guidelines, the risk of exposure and infection of healthcare providers could be significantly reduced, while providing high levels of care. The provided recommendations could be used as broad guidance for all healthcare workers who are involved with the care of COVID-19 patients.

Objectives: As institutions modified medical practices to mitigate the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, providers were forced to modify care through the implementation of telemedicine. The objective of this article is to review the current practices of otolaryngology during the COVID-19 pandemic and the limitations of telemedicine in current practice. Methods: A thorough review of the PubMed and MEDLINE databases was performed for publications between 2020 and 2021. Studies discussing telemedicine in otolaryngology during COVID-19 pandemic were selected. Results: As worldwide cases of COVID-19 continue to oscillate, we must continue to be vigilant in our clinical practice, implementing safe techniques to mitigate the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus through the continual use of telemedicine in all specialties of otolaryngology. Trends of increased patient acceptance of the use of telemedicine have been seen across subspecialities, including otolaryngology. Conclusion: Currently there are challenges associated with the implementation of telemedicine in the field of otolaryngology that rely heavily on adjunct physical examination, imaging studies, and specialty procedures. However, telemedicine has tremendous potential and can be adapted to include in the otolaryngologist’s toolbelt during public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: To investigate postacute laryngeal injuries and dysfunctions (PLID) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: Three independent investigators performed a systematic review of the current literature studying PLID in patients with a history of COVID-19. The review was performed according to PRISMA Statement. Epidemiological, clinical, hospitalization features, laryngeal diseases and voice outcomes were extracted from the included papers. Results: Eight papers met our inclusion criteria (393 patients) corresponding to 5 uncontrolled prospective and 3 retrospective studies. The most prevalent PLID were vocal fold dysmotility (65%), vocal fold edema (35%), laryngopharyngeal reflux (21%), and muscle tension dysphonia (21%). Posterior glottic stenosis (12%), granuloma (14%), and posterior glottic diastasis (12%) were the most common injuries. Most patients with PLID were obese and had a history of intensive care unit hospitalization, and orotracheal intubation. The delay between the discharge and the laryngology office consultation ranged from 51 to 122 days. The mean duration of intubation ranged from 10 to 34 days. Seventy-eight (49%) intubated patients were in prone position. The proportion of patients requiring surgical treatment ranged from 39% to 70% (mean=48%). There was an important heterogeneity between studies about inclusion, exclusion criteria and outcomes. Conclusion: COVID-19 appeared to be associated with PLID, especially in patients with a history of intubation. However, future controlled studies are needed to evaluate if intubated COVID-19 patients reported more frequently PLID than patients who were intubated for other conditions.

Background: In the present study, we assessed the feasibility and success outcomes of voice prosthesis (VP) changes when performed by speech-language pathologist (SLP). Methods: Patients treated with total laryngectomy (TL) from January 2020 to December 2020 were prospectively recruited from our medical center. Patients benefited from tracheoesophageal puncture. The VP changes were performed by the senior SLP and the following data were collected for each VP change: date of placement; change or removal; VP type and size; reason for change or removal; and use of a washer for periprosthetic leakage. A patient-reported outcome questionnaire including 6 items was proposed to patients at each VP change (Appendix 1). Items were assessed with a 10-point Likert-scale. Results: Fifty-two VP changes were performed by the senior SLP during the study period. The mean duration of the SLP consultation, including patient history, examination and VP change procedure was 20 min (range: 15-30). The median prosthesis lifetime was 88 days. The main reasons for VP changes were transprosthetic (N=34; 79%) and periprosthetic (N=7; 21%) leakages, respectively. SLP successfully performed all VP changes. He did not change one VP but used a periprosthetic silastic to stop the periprosthetic leakages. In two cases, SLP needed the surgeon examination to discuss about the following indication: implant mucosa inclusion and autologous fat injection. The patient satisfaction was high according to the speed and the quality of care by the SLP. Conclusion: The delegation of VP change from the otolaryngologist-head and neck sur-geon to the speech-language pathologist (SLP) may be done without significant complications. The delegation of VP change procedure to SLP may be interesting in some rural regions with otolaryngologist shortage.

Objective: To describe technique of platelet rich plasma injection into the olfactory cleft in patients with long-term COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction. Methods: The technique starts with the blood extraction and the isolation of PRP through a 10-min centrifugation (4,200 rpm). The supernatant was injected in nasal regions with a 27-G needle after a local anesthesia with Xylocain 10% spray. The injection was performed through a 0° rigid optic. Precisely, several points of 0.2–0.5 mL were performed in the nasal septum in regard of the head of the middle turbine, and in the head of the middle turbine in both sides. Clinical, psychophysical and pain outcomes were evaluated pre- to post-injection. Results: A 22-year-old female with 24-month post-COVID-19 anosmia was recruited for the injection of PRP. The olfactory cleft endoscopic scale score was 0 and the threshold, discrimination and identification scores were 1, 8 and 0, respectively. The Olfactory Disorder Questionnaire score was 51. The patient benefited from the injection of 2.2 mL of PRP in nasal regions, which was done without complication. The procedure pain level was 2/10, while the local anesthesia with xylocaine 10% was judged as the most annoyance step with a score of 3/10. At 2-month post-injection, the TDI scores reached 16, 16, and 16 (48), while the Olfactory Disorder Questionnaire was 73. The patient described its recovery as very rapid, lasting 3-4 days, and occurring 3-week post-injection. Conclusion: The injection of PRP into the olfactory cleft is a safe and easiness new approach that may improve the recovery of smell sense.