Abstract
Background: Covid-19 pandemic has changed the healthcare delivery and cytopathology practice worldwide. We evaluated our cytopathology laboratory workload during the lockdown and post-lockdown period and compared it with the same period in 2019, to see the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Methods: The cytological reports issued during the lockdown (10 March - 31 May 2020) and the post-lockdown period (1 June -31 August 2020); and the corresponding periods in 2019 were retrospectively reviewed from the database. Sample type, sampling site, and diagnostic categories were recorded.
Results: During the Covid-19 lockdown period, the total number of cytological specimens, was reduced from n=3197 to n=745, with a rate of 76,7%. The most reduction was in thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and cervicovaginal smears. Relative increases were observed for soft tissue, lung, and liver FNA samples (p<0.05) and cerebrospinal fluid, peritoneal and pleural fluid samples (p<0.05). In the post-lockdown period, the total number reduced from n=2461 to n=2032 with a rate of 17.4%. Significant reduction continued for thyroid FNAs, but other samples have nearly reached the pre-covid levels. During the total six months period, the rate of the malignant category increased while the negative for malignancy category decreased compared to 2019.
Conclusion: During the Covid-19 lockdown period, the reduction was primarily observed in the samples taken for screening purposes, and high-risk oncological patients continued to receive healthcare services. In the initial phase of the post-lockdown period, health services and cytopathology practice have rapidly reached almost the levels of the pre-pandemic period.
Keywords: Covid-19 pandemic, fine-needle aspiration, malignancy rate, workload
License
Copyright (c) 2022 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

