Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study

Advances in Oncoanaesthesia and Cancer Pain

INTRODUCTION

The growing interest on how peri-‑operative interventions, especially regional anesthesia, during cancer surgery can alter oncological outcome increasing disease free survival is probably responsible for the birth of the new subspecialty called onco-anesthesia. A paradigm shift in the concept of anesthetic management has occurred recently owing to the innumerable diverse revelations from the ongoing research in this field.

DISCUSSION

Long lasting but reversible epigenetic changes can occur due to surgical stress and perioperative anesthetic medications. The exact relationship between these factors and tumor biology is being studied further. A popular topic under research now is the influence of regional anesthesia on cancer recurrence. Combining nerve blocks with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) brings down the requirement of opioids and volatile anesthetic agents implicated in cancer recurrence. The study of mechanism of pain at the molecular level has led to the discovery of novel modes of prevention of chronic post-surgical pain. Newer combination aggressive treatment therapies -intraoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy, isolated limb perfusion, photodynamic therapy and robotic surgery require specialized anesthetic management. The COVID pandemic introduced new guidelines for safe management of oncosurgical patients .Use of genomic mapping to personalize pain management will be the breakthrough of the decade.

CONCLUSION

The discovery that anesthetic strategy could have significant oncological sequel is a quantum leap forward. Avoiding some anesthetic medications may decrease cancer recurrence. Comprehensive cancer care and translational research will pave the way to uncover safe anesthetic practices.

The prioritation and gap of preoperative COVID-19 vaccination in cancer surgery of the breast, head and neck, and skin: A cohort study of 367 patients in an Indonesian hospital

Background

Postoperative infection of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with higher risks of mortality and pulmonary complication. Preoperative vaccination could significantly prevent postoperative-related mortality and morbidity particularly for cancer patients.

Methods

Cancer patients who were scheduled for elective major surgery were questioned for status and their willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination and were prospectively monitored for the presence of postoperative COVID-19 infection and major complications.

Results

During the period of April–July 2021, 367 patients with median age of 49 years were scheduled for cancer surgery. Procedures for breast cancer were the most frequently performed (N = 166, 45.2%). Surgery procedures with potential aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) were performed in total of 104 patients (28.3%). Only 6 of 367 patients (1.6%) were fully vaccinated in the day of surgery and 351 patients (95.6%) were willing to receive COVID-19 vaccination. Fully vaccinated patients were significantly higher among those who were living in urban areas (OR = 22.897, 95%CI:4.022–130.357, P = 0.0001). Willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccination was significantly higher among female patients (OR = 4.661, 95%CI:1.685–12.896, P = 0.003). Postoperative COVID-19 infection was confirmed in 17 patients (4.6%) and major surgical complications were observed in 12 patients (3.3%). None of preoperatively vaccinated patients experienced postoperative COVID-19 infection or the related major complications.

Conclusion

Although prioritizing COVID-19 vaccination in preoperative cancer patients has been recommended to prevent postoperative fatalities, only a small proportion of our patients have been vaccinated. Preoperatively vaccinated patients show advantages in the prevention of postoperative COVID-19 infection and major surgery complications. The slow rollout and disparity in the vaccination progress for patients requiring a major cancer surgery need to be specifically addressed.

•

Only small proportion of preoperative cancer patients have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

•

There is rural-urban disparity in the preoperative COVID-19 vaccination of cancer patients.

•

Certain comorbidities are associated with vaccine acceptance among cancer patients.

•

Preoperative COVID-19 vaccination is potentially beneficial to prevent infection and complication.

COVID-19 and Gynecologic Oncology: What Have We Learned?

COVID-19 has transformed the care we provide to gynecologic oncology patients. In addition to directly impacting the diagnosis and treatment of women with gynecologic cancer, it has affected our patient’s ability to undergo recommended surveillance and has made an impact on every caregiver providing care during this time. Herein we review the current literature on the impact of COVID-19 on gynecologic oncology and highlight new approaches and innovations that have resulted in gynecologic cancer care as a result of the pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on the field of gynecologic oncology has been profound. In addition to directly impacting the diagnosis and treatment of women with cancer, it has also challenged the very ethics with which we practice medicine. The equitable distribution of resources is paramount to upholding the Hippocratic Oath which we all invoke. The COVID-19 pandemic has stripped this oath down to its very core, forcing all medical practitioners to scrutinize who gets what resources and when. As the pandemic continues to unfold, the question remains — in the setting of a strained and overburdened healthcare system, how do we maximize beneficence to one group of patients, while maintaining non-maleficence to others? As gynecologic oncologists, we are responsible for advocating for our patients to ensure that the quality of their cancer care is not compromised, while also not overutilizing resources that are sorely needed for the care of COVID-19 victims, and not making them more likely to succumb to COVID-19 by the very nature of the treatment we provide. The effects of the pandemic are far-reaching and broad, and many of these are yet to be determined. Future studies are needed to analyze how the above-utilized strategies in GYN cancer care during the pandemic will impact the long-term outcomes of our patients.

Resuming elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic : our experience

Aims

The aim of this study was to surveil whether the standard operating procedure created for the NHS Golden Jubilee sufficiently managed COVID-19 risk to allow safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery.

Methods

This was a prospective study of all elective orthopaedic patients within an elective unit running a green pathway at a COVID-19 light site. Rates of preoperative and 30-day postoperative COVID-19 symptoms or infection were examined for a period of 40 weeks. The unit resumed elective orthopaedic services on 29 June 2020 at a reduced capacity for a limited number of day-case procedures with strict patient selection criteria, increasing to full service on 29 August 2020 with no patient selection criteria.

Results

A total of 2,373 cases were planned in the 40-week study period. Surgery was cancelled in 59 cases, six (10.2%) of which were due to having a positive preoperative COVID-19 screening test result. Of the remaining 2,314, 996 (43%) were male and 1,318 (57%) were female. The median age was 67 years (interquartile range 59.2 to 74.6). The median American Society of Anesthesiologists grade was 2. Hip and knee arthroplasties accounted for the majority of the operations (76%). Six patients tested positive for COVID-19 preoperatively (0.25%) and 39 patients were tested for COVID-19 within 30 days after discharge, with only five patients testing positive (0.22%).

Conclusion

Through strict application of a COVID-19 green pathway, elective orthopaedic surgery could be safely delivered to a large number of patients with no selection criteria.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):951–957.

COVID-19 Pandemic and its Impact on the Management of Head and Neck Cancer in the Spanish Healthcare System

Introduction  Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has represented a major challenge for healthcare systems worldwide, changing the habits of physicians. A reorganization of healthcare activity has been necessary, limiting surgical activity to essential cases (emergencies and oncology), and improving the distribution of health resources.

Objective  To analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on head and neck cancer surgery management in Spain.

Methods  A cross-sectional study, through an anonymous and voluntary online survey distributed to 76 Spanish otorhinolaryngology departments.

Results  A total of 44 centers completed the survey, 65.9% of which were high-volume. A total of 45.5% of them had to stop high-priority surgery and 54.5% of head and neck surgeons were relocated outside their scope of practice. Surgeons reported not feeling safe during their usual practice, with a decrease to a 25% of airway procedures. A total of 29.5% were “forced” to deviate from the “standard of care” due to the epidemiological situation.

Conclusions  Approximately half of the departments decreased their activity, not treating their patients on a regular basis, and surgeons were reassigned to other tasks. It seems necessary that the head and neck surgeons balance infection risk with patient care. The consequences of the reported delays and changes in daily practice should be evaluated in the future in order to understand the real impact of the pandemic on the survival of head and neck cancer patients.

Difficult lung separation. An insight into the challenges faced during COVID-19 pandemic

Difficult lung isolation or separation in patients undergoing thoracic surgery using one-lung ventilation might be attributed to upper airway difficulty or abnormal anatomy of the lower airway. Additionally, adequate deflation of the surgical lung can impair surgical exposure. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a harmful consequence for both patients and anesthesiologists. Management of patients with difficult lung isolation can be challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic. Careful planning and preparation, preoperative routine testing, protective personal equipment, standard safety measures, proper preoxygenation, and individualize the patients care are required for successful lung separation. A systematic approach for management of difficult lung separation is centered around securing the airway and providing adequate ventilation using either a blocker or double-lumen tube. Several measures are described to expedite lung collapse.

Machine learning risk prediction of mortality for patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2: the COVIDSurg mortality score

To support the global restart of elective surgery, data from an international prospective cohort study of 8492 patients (69 countries) was analysed using artificial intelligence (machine learning techniques) to develop a predictive score for mortality in surgical patients with SARS-CoV-2. We found that patient rather than operation factors were the best predictors and used these to create the COVIDsurg Mortality Score (https://covidsurgrisk.app). Our data demonstrates that it is safe to restart a wide range of surgical services for selected patients.

Endometriosis Surgery during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Brazilian Single Institution Experience

Introduction. Early in the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic stay-at-home guidelines, there were public health orders that elective surgeries be deferred to prioritize hospital beds for critically ill COVID-19 patients. Besides, several reasons led to the postponement of consultations, diagnostic tests, and elective therapeutic procedures. As a result, some women with endometriosis faced chronification of their pain and decreased prospects for pregnancy. The aim of this study was to describe individual responses to minimally invasive complete excision of endometriosis through 40 days of follow-up of women whose endometriosis was considered severe enough to proceed with surgery during the fourth, fifth, and sixth months of constraints imposed by the pandemic. Preventive strategies and safety measures employed to protect patients and staff from acquiring or transmitting Coronavirus infection are presented. Case Presentation. This case series report enrolled 11 consecutive Brazilian women (ages 22 to 47 y) who underwent minimally invasive surgical treatment of endometriosis between June 26 and August 17, 2020. Cases of endometriosis requiring more urgent surgery were promptly identified and considered individually. The strict safety measures were well accepted by patients. No women developed any flu-like or COVID-19-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, fever, or anosmia) in the 40 days of postoperative follow-up. One of the most praised measures reported by patients was the routine testing of the patient, the person who would accompany her in the hospital, and all medical staff and employees. Discussion. It is feasible to safely perform elective endometriosis surgery in selected cases during a pandemic.

Re-evaluation of the healthcare service quality criteria for the Covid-19 pandemic: Z-number fuzzy cognitive map

Hospitals as healthcare centers have faced many challenges with the Covid-19 spread, which results in a decline in the quality of health care. Because the number of patients referred to hospitals increases dramatically during the pandemic, providing high-quality services and satisfying them is more important than ever to maintain community health and create loyal customers in the future. However, health care quality standards are generally designed for normal circumstances. The SERVPERF standard, which measures customer perceptions of service quality, has also been adjusted for hospital service quality measurement. In this study, the SERVPERF standard criteria for health services are evaluated in the Covid-19 pandemic. For this purpose, by considering the causal relationships between the criteria and using Z-Number theory and Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCMs), the importance of these criteria in the prevalence of infectious diseases was analyzed. According to the results, hospital reliability, hospital hygiene, and completeness of the hospital with ratios 0.9559, 0.9305, and 0.9268 are respectively the most influential criteria in improving the quality of health services in the spread of infectious diseases circumstances such as the Covid-19 pandemic. A review of the literature shows that in previous studies, comprehensive research has not been done on prioritizing the criteria for measuring the quality of health services in the context of the spread of infectious diseases.

Effect of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns on planned cancer surgery for 15 tumour types in 61 countries: an international, prospective, cohort study

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction.

METHODS

This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20-60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926.

FINDINGS

Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays.

INTERPRETATION

Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.

Variation in Human Research Ethics Committee and governance processes throughout Australia: a need for a uniform approach

BACKGROUND

In Australia, ethics committees across different states vary in application, requirement and process for the ethical review and approval for clinical research. This may lead to confusion and delays in the enablement of multicentre research projects. This study explores the effect of differing processes for Ethics and Governance in the establishment of the CovidSurg-Cancer study during the global COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

An anonymous, structured web-based questionnaire was designed using the Research Electronic Data Capture application (REDCap) platform to capture consultant surgeons, fellows, and trainees experience in the ethics application process. 'CovidSurg-Cancer' was an international multicentre collaborative study to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the outcomes of patients undergoing cancer surgery. The ethics process to set up this observational study was used as to explore the differing processes applied across Australia.

RESULTS

The CovidSurg-Cancer study was successfully set up in 14 hospitals. Four hospitals approved the study directly as an audit. Of the remaining sites, 10 ethics applications underwent Human Research Ethics Committee review following which two (14%) were subsequently approved as an audit activity and eight hospitals (57%) were given formal ethical approval with waiver of consent. Ethics application acceptance from another Australian Human Research Ethics Committee was provided with six applications; however, only three were reciprocated without the requirement for further agreements. A third of (30%) respondents suggested that the details of the application pathway, process and documentation were unclear.

CONCLUSION

Ethics processes are varied across Australia with considerable repetition. A centralized, harmonized application process would enhance collaborative research.

COVIDSurg Collaborative, GlobalSurg Collaborative. Effects of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery: an international prospective cohort study

We aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05-1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4-7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04-1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11-1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care.

BJS commission on surgery and perioperative care post-COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020 and global surgical practice was compromised. This Commission aimed to document and reflect on the changes seen in the surgical environment during the pandemic, by reviewing colleagues' experiences and published evidence.

METHODS

In late 2020, BJS contacted colleagues across the global surgical community and asked them to describe how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had affected their practice. In addition to this, the Commission undertook a literature review on the impact of COVID-19 on surgery and perioperative care. A thematic analysis was performed to identify the issues most frequently encountered by the correspondents, as well as the solutions and ideas suggested to address them.

RESULTS

BJS received communications for this Commission from leading clinicians and academics across a variety of surgical specialties in every inhabited continent. The responses from all over the world provided insights into multiple facets of surgical practice from a governmental level to individual clinical practice and training.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic has uncovered a variety of problems in healthcare systems, including negative impacts on surgical practice. Global surgical multidisciplinary teams are working collaboratively to address research questions about the future of surgery in the post-COVID-19 era. The COVID-19 pandemic is severely damaging surgical training. The establishment of a multidisciplinary ethics committee should be encouraged at all surgical oncology centres. Innovative leadership and collaboration is vital in the post-COVID-19 era.

COVID-19 and the impact on gynecologic cancer care

The COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in significant reconfiguration of gynecologic cancer services and care pathways across the globe, with a transformation of working practices. Services had to adapt to protect their vulnerable patients from infection, whilst providing care despite reduced resources/capacity and staffing. The international gynecologic cancer community introduced modified clinical care guidelines. Remote working, reduced hospital visiting, routine COVID‐testing, and use of COVID‐free surgical areas/hubs enabled the ongoing and safe delivery of complex cancer care, with priority levels for cancer treatments established to guide decision‐making by multidisciplinary tumor boards. Some 2.3 million cancer surgeries were delayed or cancelled during the first peak, with many patients reporting significant anxiety/concern for cancer progression and COVID infection. Although COVID trials were prioritized, recruitment to other cancer trials/research activity was significantly reduced. The impact of resultant protocol deviations on outcomes remains to be established. During the recovery healthcare services must maintain capacity and flexibility to manage future surges of infection, address the large backlog of patients with altered or delayed treatments, along with salvaging screening and prevention services. Training needs/mental well‐being of trainees need addressing and staff burnout prevented. Future research needs to fully evaluate the impact of COVID‐19 on long‐term patient outcomes.

This article reviews the global changes introduced to gynecologic cancer care due to COVID‐19, and their impact on services and patients. Key lessons are considered for the recovery and future.

Unequal Impact of COVID-19 on Private and Academic Neurosurgical Workforce: Results of an International Survey

Background: Since the COVID-19 outbreak several manuscripts regarding neurosurgical practice during this pandemic have been published. Qualitative studies on how the pandemic affected neurosurgeons, with additional focus on their practice, are still scarce. This study's objective was to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of the professional and private life of a homogeneous group of international neurosurgeons affiliated to the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS). Methods: Neurosurgeons from Europe and abroad were invited to participate in an online survey endorsed by the Individual Membership Committee of the EANS. The survey captured a subjective snapshot of the impact of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on EANS members and was advertised through its Institutional website. In addition to departmental data, personal feeling of safety, financial security, local precautions, number of surgeries performed, changes in daily routine, and other practice-related information were inquired. Differences among practice types were closely reviewed. Results: The survey was distributed between April and May 2020: 204 neurosurgeons participated. Participants were typically active EANS members (73%), consultants (57.9%), from university hospitals (64.5%). Elective surgical practice was still ongoing only for 15% of responders, whereas 18.7% of them had already transitioned to COVID-19 and emergency medical services. While 65.7% of participants thought their institutions were adequately prepared, lack of testing for SARS-CoV-2, and scarcity of personal protective equipment were still a matter of concern for most of them. Overall surgical activity dropped by 68% (cranial by 54%, spine by 71%), and even emergencies decreased by 35%. COVID-19 prompted changes in communication in 74% of departments, 44% increased telemedicine by >50%. While most neurosurgeons had concerns about personal and families' health, financial outlook appeared to be gloomy only for private practitioners. Conclusion: The lockdown imposed in many countries by the COVID-19 outbreak called for immediate modification of working routine and resulted in a dramatic decrease of elective surgical procedures. Neurosurgeons share common concerns but were not equally exposed to the personal health and financial dangers of the ongoing pandemic.

The ESSO core curriculum committee update on surgical oncology

INTRODUCTION

Surgical oncology is a defined specialty within the European Board of Surgery within the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Variation in training and specialization still occurs across Europe. There is a need to align the core knowledge needed to fulfil the criteria across subspecialities in surgical oncology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The core curriculum, established in 2013, was developed with contributions from expert advisors from within the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and related subspeciality experts.

RESULTS

The current version reiterates and updates the core curriculum structure needed for current and future candidates who plans to train for and eventually sit the European fellowship exam for the European Board of Surgery in Surgical Oncology. The content included is not intended to be exhaustive but, rather to give the candidate an idea of expectations and areas for in depth study, in addition to the practical requirements. The five elements included are: Basic principles of oncology; Disease site specific oncology; Generic clinical skills; Training recommendations, and, lastly; Eligibility for the EBSQ exam in Surgical Oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

As evidence-based care for cancer patients evolves through research into basic science, translational research and clinical trials, the core curriculum will evolve, mature and adapt to deliver continual improvements in cancer outcomes for patients.

30-Day Morbidity and Mortality of Bariatric Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Multinational Cohort Study of 7704 Patients from 42 Countries

BACKGROUND

There are data on the safety of cancer surgery and the efficacy of preventive strategies on the prevention of postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 in these patients. But there is little such data for any elective surgery. The main objectives of this study were to examine the safety of bariatric surgery (BS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to determine the efficacy of perioperative COVID-19 protective strategies on postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 rates.

METHODS

We conducted an international cohort study to determine all-cause and COVID-19-specific 30-day morbidity and mortality of BS performed between 01/05/2020 and 31/10/2020.

RESULTS

Four hundred ninety-nine surgeons from 185 centres in 42 countries provided data on 7704 patients. Elective primary BS (n = 7084) was associated with a 30-day morbidity of 6.76% (n = 479) and a 30-day mortality of 0.14% (n = 10). Emergency BS, revisional BS, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, and untreated obstructive sleep apnoea were associated with increased complications on multivariable analysis. Forty-three patients developed symptomatic COVID-19 postoperatively, with a higher risk in non-whites. Preoperative self-isolation, preoperative testing for SARS-CoV-2, and surgery in institutions not concurrently treating COVID-19 patients did not reduce the incidence of postoperative COVID-19. Postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 was more likely if the surgery was performed during a COVID-19 peak in that country.

CONCLUSIONS

BS can be performed safely during the COVID-19 pandemic with appropriate perioperative protocols. There was no relationship between preoperative testing for COVID-19 and self-isolation with symptomatic postoperative COVID-19. The risk of postoperative COVID-19 risk was greater in non-whites or if BS was performed during a local peak.

COVIDSurg Collaborative, GlobalSurg Collaborative . SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling.

METHODS

The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty.

RESULTS

NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year.

CONCLUSION

As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population.

Impact of preoperative COVID infection on the outcomes of planned curative-intent cancer surgeries in the second wave of the pandemic from a tertiary care center in India

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) pandemic was an unforeseen calamity. Sudden disruption of nonemergency services led to disruption of treatment across all specialties. Oncology revolves around the tenet of timely detection and treatment. Disruption of any sort will jeopardize cure rates. The time interval between coronavirus infection and cancer surgery is variable and needs to be tailored to avoid the progression of the disease.

Methods

We analyzed the impact of preoperative coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection on the planned cancer surgery, delay, disease progression, and change of intent of treatment from April 1 to May 31, 2021 at a tertiary care center. All preoperative positive patients were retested after 2 weeks and were considered for surgery if the repeat test was negative and asymptomatic.

Findings

Our study included 432 preoperative patients of which 91 (21%) were COVID‐19 positive. Amongst this cohort, 76% were operated and the morbidity and mortality were comparable to the COVID‐19 negative cohort. Around 10% of the COVID‐19 positive were lost to follow up and 10% had disease progression and were deemed palliative

Interpretation

SARS‐CoV‐2 infection has adversely impacted cancer care and a 2‐week waiting period postinfection seems to be a safe interval in asymptomatic individuals to consider radical cancer surgery.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling.

METHODS

The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty.

RESULTS

NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year.

CONCLUSION

As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population.

Safety of elective abdominal and vascular surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective single-center study

BACKGROUND

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who undergo surgery have impaired postoperative outcomes and increased mortality. Consequently, elective and semi-urgent operations on the increasing number of patients severely affected by COVID-19 have been indefinitely postponed.in many countries with unclear implications on disease progression and overall survival. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the establishment of a standardized screening program for acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is sufficient to ensure high-quality medical and surgical treatment of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients while minimizing in-hospital SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

METHODS

The screening program comprised polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of nasopharyngeal swabs and a standardized questionnaire about potential symptoms for SARS-CoV-2 infection. All elective and emergency patients admitted to the surgical department of a tertiary-care hospital center in Lower Franconia, Germany, between March and May 2020 were included and their characteristics were recorded.

RESULTS

Out of the study population (n = 657), 509 patients (77.5%) had at least one risk factor for a potentially severe course of COVID-19 and 164 patients (25%) were active smokers. The average 7-day incidence in Lower Franconia was 24.0/100,000 during the observation period. Preoperative PCR testing revealed four asymptomatic positive patients out of the 657 tested patients. No postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection or transmission could be detected.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of a standardized preoperative screening program to both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients can ensure high-quality surgical care while minimizing infection risk for healthcare workers and potential in-hospital transmission.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 on training and mental well-being of surgical gynecological oncology trainees

INTRODUCTION

The SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic has caused a crisis disrupting health systems worldwide. While efforts are being made to determine the extent of the disruption, the impact on gynecological oncology trainees/training has not been explored. We conducted an international survey of the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on clinical practice, medical education, and mental well-being of surgical gynecological oncology trainees.

METHODS

In our cross-sectional study, a customized web-based survey was circulated to surgical gynecological oncology trainees from national/international organizations from May to November 2020. Validated questionnaires assessed mental well-being. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Fisher's exact test were used to analyse differences in means and proportions. Multiple linear regression was used to evaluate the effect of variables on psychological/mental well-being outcomes. Outcomes included clinical practice, medical education, anxiety and depression, distress, and mental well-being.

RESULTS

A total of 127 trainees from 34 countries responded. Of these, 52% (66/127) were from countries with national training programs (UK/USA/Netherlands/Canada/Australia) and 48% (61/127) from countries with no national training programs. Altogether, 28% (35/125) had suspected/confirmed COVID-19, 28% (35/125) experienced a fall in household income, 20% (18/90) were self-isolated from households, 45% (57/126) had to re-use personal protective equipment, and 22% (28/126) purchased their own. In total, 32.3% (41/127) of trainees (16.6% (11/66) from countries with a national training program vs 49.1% (30/61) from countries with no national training program, p=0.02) perceived they would require additional time to complete their training fellowship. The additional training time anticipated did not differ between trainees from countries with or without national training programs (p=0.11) or trainees at the beginning or end of their fellowship (p=0.12). Surgical exposure was reduced for 50% of trainees. Departmental teaching continued throughout the pandemic for 69% (87/126) of trainees, although at reduced frequency for 16.1% (14/87), and virtually for 88.5% (77/87). Trainees reporting adequate pastoral support (defined as allocation of a dedicated mentor/access to occupational health support services) had better mental well-being with lower levels of anxiety/depression (p=0.02) and distress (p<0.001). Trainees from countries with a national training program experienced higher levels of distress (p=0.01). Mean (SD) pre-pandemic mental well-being scores were significantly higher than post-pandemic scores (8.3 (1.6) vs 7 (1.8); p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

SARS-CoV-2 has negatively impacted the surgical training, household income, and psychological/mental well-being of surgical gynecological oncology trainees. The overall clinical impact was worse for trainees in countries with no national training program than for those in countries with a national training program, although national training program trainees reported greater distress. COVID-19 sickness increased anxiety/depression. The recovery phase must focus on improving mental well-being and addressing lost training opportunities.

Tocilizumab in SARS-COVID19 following postoperative laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for the adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric tumor: A case report

Introduction and importance

Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is one of the most challenging surgical procedures, with high rates of morbidity, especially from respiratory complications. SARS-COVID19 represents a health threat nowadays. Peri-operative SARS-COVID19 infection after esophagectomy might negatively affect the postoperative outcomes. The use of tocilizumab as an alternative to reduce the inflammatory response in SARS-COVID19 is an option that has not been described in the literature after esophagectomy.

Case presentation

A SARS-COVID19-vaccinated (CORONAVAC) 73-year-old man with pulmonary emphysema, coronary artery disease, previous asymptomatic pulmonary embolism, and adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction tumor was submitted to laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy (ypT2N0M0) after perioperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy. He was also infected with SARS-COVID19, confirmed by PCR test at the 14th postoperative day. During follow-up, mild hypoxemia persisted without evidence of infection except for SARS-COVID19, and a high-flow cannula was required to maintain oxygenation. Tocilizumab was administered following high parameters of a high-flow cannula, and invasive mechanical ventilation was avoided.

Discussion

Besides of the risk of secondary infection, after administration of tocilizumab, the parameters of oxygen supplementation were systematically reduced, and he stayed in the ICU for seven days. He was discharged from the ward six days later. He developed late cervical anastomotic leakage, which was treated with conservative therapy.

Conclusion

Although the patient had high-risk comorbidities, esophagectomy, and SARS-COVID19 infection, the use of tocilizumab was safe and improved the pulmonary recovery.

•

Esophagectomy has been considered high morbidity surgery in pandemic COVID-19

•

SARS-COVID-19 after esophagectomy could be fatal

•

Tocilizumab for SARS COVID19 might be useful avoiding invasive ventilation

Elective Surgical Experience During COVID Pandemic at a Tertiary Cancer Care Centre in India: A Retrospective Analysis

To analyse and identify possible outcomes of elective cancer surgeries performed at a tertiary cancer centre during COVID19 pandemic. This is a retrospective study including patients that underwent surgery at HCG Manavata cancer centre, Nashik, Maharashtra, India, from 15 March 2020 to 15 June 2020. Among the 458 patients that underwent elective surgeries, 54% were male and 46% were female, with a median age of 50.57 years. The most common sites of cancer distribution were head and neck (24.67%), colorectal (11.57%), gynaecological (11.35%), and breast (10.26%). Of the included patients, 92% were of American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) II with comorbidities such as hypertension, and 64% underwent major surgeries with a mortality rate of 1.52% (n = 7). Average duration of surgery and hospital stay was observed to be 168.43 min and 4.4 days, respectively. Post-operatively, 7 patients were tested COVID positive and their recovery was uneventful. Despite the difficulty that set in because of COVID19 pandemic, it was proven from our study that elective cancer care surgeries can be successfully performed by following all the set guidelines.

Preliminary model assessing the cost-effectiveness of preoperative chlorhexidine mouthwash at reducing postoperative pneumonia among abdominal surgery patients in South Africa

Background

Pneumonia is a common and severe complication of abdominal surgery, it is associated with increased length of hospital stay, healthcare costs, and mortality. Further, pulmonary complication rates have risen during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This study explored the potential cost-effectiveness of administering preoperative chlorhexidine mouthwash versus no-mouthwash at reducing postoperative pneumonia among abdominal surgery patients.

Methods

A decision analytic model taking the South African healthcare provider perspective was constructed to compare costs and benefits of mouthwash versus no-mouthwash-surgery at 30 days after abdominal surgery. We assumed two scenarios: (i) the absence of COVID-19; (ii) the presence of COVID-19. Input parameters were collected from published literature including prospective cohort studies and expert opinion. Effectiveness was measured as proportion of pneumonia patients. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of parameter uncertainties. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis were presented using cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

Results

In the absence of COVID-19, mouthwash had lower average costs compared to no-mouthwash-surgery, $3,675 (R 63,770) versus $3,958 (R 68,683), and lower proportion of pneumonia patients, 0.029 versus 0.042 (dominance of mouthwash intervention). In the presence of COVID-19, the increase in pneumonia rate due to COVID-19, made mouthwash more dominant as it was more beneficial to reduce pneumonia patients through administering mouthwash. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves shown that mouthwash surgery is likely to be cost-effective between $0 (R0) and $15,000 (R 260,220) willingness to pay thresholds.

Conclusions

Both the absence and presence of SARS-CoV-2, mouthwash is likely to be cost saving intervention for reducing pneumonia after abdominal surgery. However, the available evidence for the effectiveness of mouthwash was extrapolated from cardiac surgery; there is now an urgent need for a robust clinical trial on the intervention on non-cardiac surgery.

Effect of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on mortality related to high-risk emergency and major elective surgery

These data show large reductions in both elective and emergency activity that are concerning for unmeasured morbidity and mortality within the community. The risk of mortality following high-risk EGS and major elective surgery during the first wave of the pandemic did not differ when compared with date-matched patient cohorts from 2019. The prevalence of concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection in this surgical population is low.

Mortality after surgery with SARS-CoV-2 infection in England: a population-wide epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has heavily impacted elective and emergency surgery around the world. We aimed to confirm the incidence of perioperative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and associated mortality after surgery.

METHODS

Analysis of routine electronic health record data from NHS hospitals in England. We extracted data from Hospital Episode Statistics in England describing adult patients undergoing surgery between January 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021. The exposure was SARS-CoV-2 infection defined by International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes. The primary outcome measure was 90 day in-hospital mortality. Data were analysed using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Index of Multiple Deprivation, presence of cancer, surgical procedure type and admission acuity. Results are presented as n (%) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

We identified 2 666 978 patients undergoing surgery of whom 28 777 (1.1%) had SARS-CoV-2 infection. In total, 26 364 (1.0%) patients died in hospital. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a much greater risk of death (SARS-CoV-2: 6153/28 777 [21.4%] vs no SARS-CoV-2: 20 211/2 638 201 [0.8%]; OR=5.7 [95% CI, 5.5-5.9]; P<0.001). Amongst patients undergoing elective surgery, 2412/1 857 586 (0.1%) had SARS-CoV-2, of whom 172/2412 (7.1%) died, compared with 1414/1 857 586 (0.1%) patients without SARS-CoV-2 (OR=25.8 [95% CI, 21.7-30.9]; P<0.001). Amongst patients undergoing emergency surgery, 22 918/582 292 (3.9%) patients had SARS-CoV-2, of whom 5752/22 918 (25.1%) died, compared with 18 060/559 374 (3.4%) patients without SARS-CoV-2 (OR=5.5 [95% CI, 5.3-5.7]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The low incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in NHS surgical pathways suggests current infection prevention and control policies are highly effective. However, the high mortality amongst patients with SARS-CoV-2 suggests these precautions cannot be safely relaxed.

Impact of COVID-19 on the outcomes of gastrointestinal surgery

COVID-19 pandemic has brought a paradigm shift in the treatment of various surgical gastrointestinal disorders. Given the increasing number of patients requiring hospitalization and intensive care for SARS-CoV-2 infections, various surgical departments worldwide were forced to stop or postpone elective surgeries to save the health resources for COVID-19 patients. Since the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic by the World Health Organization on 12th March 2020, the recommendations from the surgical societies kept evolving to help the surgeons in making informed decisions regarding patient care. Moreover, various socio-economic and epidemiological factors have come into play while deciding the optimal approach towards patients requiring gastrointestinal surgery. Surgeries for many abdominal diseases such as acute appendicitis and acute calculous cholecystitis were postponed. Elective surgeries were triaged based on the urgency of performing the surgical procedure, the hospital burden of COVID-19 patients, and the availability of healthcare resources. Various measures were adopted such as preoperative screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, use of personal protective equipment, and the COVID-19-free surgical pathway to prevent perioperative SARS-CoV-2 transmission. In this article, we have reviewed the recent studies reporting the outcomes of various gastrointestinal surgeries in the COVID-19 pandemic era and the recommendations from various surgical societies on the safety precautions to be followed during gastrointestinal surgery.

Impact of COVID-19 on the outcomes of gastrointestinal surgery

COVID-19 pandemic has brought a paradigm shift in the treatment of various surgical gastrointestinal disorders. Given the increasing number of patients requiring hospitalization and intensive care for SARS-CoV-2 infections, various surgical departments worldwide were forced to stop or postpone elective surgeries to save the health resources for COVID-19 patients. Since the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic by the World Health Organization on 12th March 2020, the recommendations from the surgical societies kept evolving to help the surgeons in making informed decisions regarding patient care. Moreover, various socio-economic and epidemiological factors have come into play while deciding the optimal approach towards patients requiring gastrointestinal surgery. Surgeries for many abdominal diseases such as acute appendicitis and acute calculous cholecystitis were postponed. Elective surgeries were triaged based on the urgency of performing the surgical procedure, the hospital burden of COVID-19 patients, and the availability of healthcare resources. Various measures were adopted such as preoperative screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, use of personal protective equipment, and the COVID-19-free surgical pathway to prevent perioperative SARS-CoV-2 transmission. In this article, we have reviewed the recent studies reporting the outcomes of various gastrointestinal surgeries in the COVID-19 pandemic era and the recommendations from various surgical societies on the safety precautions to be followed during gastrointestinal surgery.

30-Day Morbidity and Mortality of Bariatric Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Multinational Cohort Study of 7704 Patients from 42 Countries

BACKGROUND

There are data on the safety of cancer surgery and the efficacy of preventive strategies on the prevention of postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 in these patients. But there is little such data for any elective surgery. The main objectives of this study were to examine the safety of bariatric surgery (BS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to determine the efficacy of perioperative COVID-19 protective strategies on postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 rates.

METHODS

We conducted an international cohort study to determine all-cause and COVID-19-specific 30-day morbidity and mortality of BS performed between 01/05/2020 and 31/10/2020.

RESULTS

Four hundred ninety-nine surgeons from 185 centres in 42 countries provided data on 7704 patients. Elective primary BS (n = 7084) was associated with a 30-day morbidity of 6.76% (n = 479) and a 30-day mortality of 0.14% (n = 10). Emergency BS, revisional BS, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, and untreated obstructive sleep apnoea were associated with increased complications on multivariable analysis. Forty-three patients developed symptomatic COVID-19 postoperatively, with a higher risk in non-whites. Preoperative self-isolation, preoperative testing for SARS-CoV-2, and surgery in institutions not concurrently treating COVID-19 patients did not reduce the incidence of postoperative COVID-19. Postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 was more likely if the surgery was performed during a COVID-19 peak in that country.

CONCLUSIONS

BS can be performed safely during the COVID-19 pandemic with appropriate perioperative protocols. There was no relationship between preoperative testing for COVID-19 and self-isolation with symptomatic postoperative COVID-19. The risk of postoperative COVID-19 risk was greater in non-whites or if BS was performed during a local peak.

Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of Telephone Administration of an adapted wound heaLing QuestiONnaire for assessment for surgical site infection following abdominal surgery in low and middle-income countries (TALON): protocol for a study within a trial (SWAT)

Background

Surgical site infection is the most common complication of abdominal surgery, with a global impact on patients and health systems. There are no tools to identify wound infection that are validated for use in the global setting. The overall aim of the study described in this protocol is to evaluate the feasibility and validity of a remote, digital pathway for wound assessment after hospital discharge for patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods

A multi-centre, international, mixed-methods study within a trial, conducted in two stages (TALON-1 and TALON-2). TALON-1 will adapt and translate a universal reporter outcome measurement tool (Bluebelle Wound Healing Questionnaire, WHQ) for use in global surgical research (SWAT store registration: 126) that can be delivered over the telephone. TALON-2 will evaluate a remote wound assessment pathway (including trial retention) and validate the diagnostic accuracy of this adapted WHQ through a prospective cohort study embedded within two global surgery trials. Embedded community engagement and involvement activities will be used to optimise delivery and ensure culturally attuned conduct. TALON-1 and TALON-2 are designed and will be reported in accordance with best practice guidelines for adaptation and validation of outcome measures, and diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Discussion

Methods to identify surgical site infection after surgery for patients after hospital discharge have the potential to improve patient safety, trial retention, and research efficiency. TALON represents a large, pragmatic, international study co-designed and delivered with LMIC researchers and patients to address an important research gap in global surgery trial methodology.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05398-z.

Anesthetic Management for Thoracic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores recent international guidance on the anesthetic management of patients undergoing thoracic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring urgent thoracic surgery and those presenting for elective procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

A significant mortality risk is associated with patients with COVID-19 undergoing thoracic surgery; therefore, where possible, it should be avoided. Thoracic surgery also carries a significant risk of viral transmission to healthcare workers due to the necessarily high frequency of intraoperative aerosol-generating procedures involved, such as lung isolation, one-lung ventilation, and flexible bronchoscopy.

SUMMARY

Guidelines recommend appropriate personal protective equipment and numerous procedural modifications to prevent viral transmission to staff and other patients. With appropriate disease mitigation strategies in place, elective thoracic surgery, in particular for lung cancer, has been able to continue safely in many centres.

Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer Performed During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Delay in time to esophagectomy for esophageal cancer has been shown to have worse peri-operative and long-term outcomes. We hypothesized that COVID-19 would cause a delay to surgery, with worse perioperative outcomes, compared to standard operations. All esophagectomies for esophageal cancer at a single institution from March-June 2020, COVID-19 group, and from 2019 were reviewed and peri-operative details were compared between groups. Ninety-six esophagectomies were performed in 2019 vs 37 during March-June 2020 (COVID-19 group). No differences between groups were found for preoperative comorbidities. Wait-time to surgery from final neoadjuvant treatment was similar, median 50 days in 2019 vs 53 days during COVID-19 p = 0.601. There was no increased upstaging, from clinical stage to pathologic stage, 9.4% in 2019 vs 7.5% in COVID-19 p = 0.841. Fewer overall complications occurred during COVID-19 vs 2019, 43.2% vs 64.6% p = 0.031, but complications were similar by specific grades. Readmission rates were not statistically different during COVID-19 than 2019, 16.2% vs 10.4% p = 0.38. No peri-operative mortalities or COVID-19 infections were seen in the COVID-19 group. Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer was not associated with worse outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic with minimal risk of infection when careful COVID-19 guidelines are followed. Prioritization is recommended to ensure no delays to surgery.

The impact of the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer services in England and Wales: A national survey

AIM

The object of this work was to study how National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales aimed to maintain effective and safe colorectal cancer (CRC) services during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020).

METHOD

A national survey was performed among all 148 hospitals providing CRC services. Information was collected about changes in referrals, diagnostic, staging and therapeutic procedures, as well as whether there was access to a 'cold site' (a hospital facility free of COVID-19). Clinicians in each hospital were also asked to give the 'single most important lesson learned' about keeping services safe and effective.

RESULTS

Full responses were received from 123 (83%) hospitals, and information about 'cold sites' was available for 146 (99%). Eighty hospitals (54%) had access to a 'cold site' and this was increased in regions with higher COVID-19 infection rates (p <0.001). Of the 123 responding hospitals, 105 (85%) indicated that referrals of patients with suspected CRC had dropped by at least 30%, and 69 (56%) indicated that treatment plans were altered in at least 50% of CRC patients. However, 'cold site' availability protected the capacity for diagnostic colonoscopy (p = 0.013) and CRC resection (p = 0.010). Many 'lessons learned' highlighted the importance of adequate structural service organization, often mentioning 'cold sites' and regional coordination as examples, good communication and triage of patients based on clinical urgency.

CONCLUSION

Access to 'cold sites', as well as regional coordination, clear communication and strong leadership, were found to be pivotal in maintaining capacity for diagnosis and treatment of CRC during the COVID-19 surge.

Reducing waiting lists for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An intensive approach to aid COVID-19 recovery

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations in the United Kingdom, commonly due to symptomatic gallstones. Delay between diagnosis and definitive surgical intervention often leads to a significant readmission rate, growing financial burden and increased complexity of the ultimate surgical intervention. Resource reallocation and reduced operational capacity during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to an impending waiting list crisis.

Methods

In an attempt to address the backlog of cases, five intensive dedicated operating lists were allocated for laparoscopic cholecystectomies across a weekend in October 2020 at a single Trust. Prospective data were collected to include baseline demographics, operative procedure, 30-day post-operative outcomes and financial implications.

Results

A total of 21 cholecystectomies were performed in total, with a majority ASA 2 (American Society of Anaesthesiologists) for predominantly biliary colic indication. All were completed laparoscopically, with a 90.5% rate for complete resection. There were no reported on-table complications and 81.0% of patients discharged as a day case. Thirty day follow-up revealed a complication rate of 9.5%, with 2 patients requiring oral antibiotics for a superficial wound infection. The 30 day COVID-19 rate was 14.3%. Compared to completion on an average weekday list, the total weekend was estimated to have saved over £70,000 in overall costs.

Conclusion

Our study showed that weekend focused operating, with a caveat of careful patient selection and high-quality multidisciplinary working, can be a feasible solution to long waiting lists due to COVID-19 pandemic. It was safe, with avoidance of increased burden on emergency resources, and significantly increased theatre efficiency.

COVIDSurg Collaborative, GlobalSurg Collaborative. Timing of surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international prospective cohort study

Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

Surgical Treatment and Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Population-based Study in England

To compare the management and outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic with the preceding 6 months.

BACKGROUND

The pandemic has affected the diagnosis and treatment of CRC patients worldwide. Little is known about the safety of major resection and whether creating "cold" sites (COVID-free hospitals) is effective.

METHODS

A national study in England used administrative hospital data for 14,930 CRC patients undergoing surgery between October 1, 2019, and May 31, 2020. Mortality of CRC resection was compared before and after March 23, 2020 ("lockdown" start).

RESULTS

The number of elective CRC procedures dropped sharply during the pandemic (from average 386 to 214 per week), whereas emergency procedures were hardly affected (from 88 to 84 per week). There was little change in characteristics of surgical patients during the pandemic. Laparoscopic surgery decreased from 62.5% to 35.9% for elective and from 17.7% to 9.7% for emergency resections. Surgical mortality increased slightly (from 0.9% to 1.2%, P = 0.06) after elective and markedly (from 5.6% to 8.9%, P = 0.003) after emergency resections. The observed increase in mortality during the first phase of the pandemic was similar in "cold" and "hot" sites (P > 0.5 elective and emergency procedures).

CONCLUSIONS

The pandemic resulted in a 50% reduction in elective CRC procedures during the initial surge and a substantial increase in mortality after emergency resection. There was no evidence that surgery in COVID-free "cold" sites led to better outcomes in the first 2 months.

COVID-19 and the multidisciplinary care of patients with lung cancer: an evidence-based review and commentary

Delivering lung cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant and ongoing challenges. There is a lack of published COVID-19 and lung cancer evidence-based reviews, including for the whole patient pathway. We searched for COVID-19 and lung cancer publications and brought together a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to review and comment on the evidence and challenges. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken up to 28 October 2020, producing 144 papers, with 113 full texts screened. We focused on new primary data collection (qualitative or quantitative evidence) and excluded case reports, editorials and commentaries. Following exclusions, 15 published papers were included in the review and are summarised. They included one qualitative paper and 14 quantitative studies (surveys or cohort studies), with a total of 2295 lung cancer patients data included (mean study size 153 patients; range 7-803). Review of current evidence and commentary included awareness and help-seeking; lung cancer screening; primary care assessment and referral; diagnosis and treatment in secondary care, including oncology and surgery; patient experience and palliative care. Cross-cutting themes and challenges were identified using qualitative methods for patients, healthcare professionals and service delivery, with a clear need for continued studies to guide evidence-based decision-making.

Impact of the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic on a tertiary referral centre for kidney cancer

Objective

To analyse the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on a centralized specialist kidney cancer care pathway.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient and pathway characteristics including prioritization strategies at the Specialist Centre for Kidney Cancer located at the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (RFH) before and during the surge of COVID‐19.

Results

On 18 March 2020 all elective surgery was halted at RFH to redeploy resources and staff for the COVID‐19 surge. Prioritizing of patients according to European Association of Urology guidance was introduced. Clinics and the specialist multidisciplinary team (SMDT) meetings were maintained with physical distancing, kidney surgery was moved to a COVID‐protected site, and infection prevention measurements were enforced. During the 7 weeks of lockdown (23 March to 10 May 2020), 234 cases were discussed at the SMDT meetings, 53% compared to the 446 cases discussed in the 7 weeks pre‐lockdown. The reduction in referrals was more pronounced for small and asymptomatic renal masses. Of 62 low‐priority cancer patients, 27 (43.5%) were deferred. Only one (4%) COVID‐19 infection occurred postoperatively, and the patient made a full recovery. No increase in clinical or pathological upstaging could be detected in patients who underwent deferred surgery compared to pre‐COVID practice.

Conclusion

The first surge of the COVID‐19 pandemic severely impacted diagnosis, referral and treatment of kidney cancer at a tertiary referral centre. With a policy of prioritization and COVID‐protected pathways, capacity for time‐sensitive oncological interventions was maintained and no immediate clinical harm was observed.

CSF Rhinorrhea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base (CRANIAL) - Part 2: Impact of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the increased risk of perioperative mortality for patients with COVID-19, and the transmission risk to healthcare workers, especially during endonasal neurosurgical operations. The Pituitary Society has produced recommendations to guide management during this era. We sought to assess contemporary neurosurgical practice and the effects of COVID-19.

METHODS

A multicenter prospective observational cohort study was conducted at 12 tertiary neurosurgical units (United Kingdom and Ireland). Data were collected from March 23 to July 31, 2020, inclusive. The data points collected included patient demographics, preoperative COVID-19 test results, operative modifications, and 30-day COVID-19 infection rates.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients were included. Of the 124 patients, 116 (94%) had undergone COVID-19 testing preoperatively (transsphenoidal approach, 97 of 105 [92%]; expanded endoscopic endonasal approach, 19 of 19 [100%]). One patient (1 of 116 [0.9%]) had tested positive for COVID-19 preoperatively, requiring a delay in surgery until the infection had been confirmed as resolved. Other than transient diabetes insipidus, no other complications were reported for this patient. All operating room staff had worn at least level 2 personal protective equipment. Adaptations to surgical techniques included minimizing drilling, draping modifications, and the use of a nasal iodine wash. At 30 days postoperatively, no evidence of COVID-19 infection (symptoms or positive formal testing results) were found in our cohort and no mortality had occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative screening protocols and operative modifications have facilitated endonasal neurosurgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the Pituitary Society guidelines followed for most of these operations. We found no evidence of COVID-19 infection in our cohort and no mortality, supporting the use of risk mitigation strategies to continue endonasal neurosurgery in subsequent pandemic waves.

Care as Usual: An Acceptable Strategy to Apply During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a French Tertiary Gynecologic Oncology Department

We describe and analyze a “care as usual” strategy of a French Comprehensive Cancer Center during the COVID-19 pandemic to manage surgical patients with gynecological cancer. We conducted a retrospective analysis evaluating the surgical activity in our gynecologic oncology department between January 21 and May 12, 2020. We compared the surgical activity and surgical and oncologic outcomes during the pre-lockdown period and the pandemic period. The main objective was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical activity. The secondary objectives were to analyze the surgical and the oncologic outcomes. We compared the surgical activity during the 8 weeks after the national lockdown (85 procedures) to the surgical activity in the 8 weeks preceding the lockdown (127 procedures). We observed a 33% decrease in activity between the two periods. The clinical and epidemiologic characteristics were similar between the two periods. There were no differences between the surgical approaches (p = 0.592), the surgical complexity (p = 0.323), the length of stay (p = 0.85), and even for the complex procedure (p = 0.96) and the perioperative (p = 0.791) and postoperative complication rates (p = 0.102). We observed a significant decrease in the time of return to intended oncological treatment (RIOT) during the lockdown period with an average of 31.9 days compared to 46.9 days in the pre-lockdown period (p = 0.003). During the COVID-19 pandemic, “care as usual” represents an acceptable strategy without impairing the oncologic outcome in a Comprehensive Cancer Center with a patient-centered clinical pathway for gynecologic oncologic surgical patients.

The PanSurg-PREDICT Study: Endocrine Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients have continued to present with endocrine (surgical) pathology in an environment depleted of resources. This study investigated how the pandemic affected endocrine surgery practice.

Methods

PanSurg-PREDICT is an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of emergency and elective surgical patients in secondary/tertiary care during the pandemic. PREDICT-Endocrine collected endocrine-specific data alongside demographics, COVID-19 and outcome data from 11–3-2020 to 13–9-2020.

Results

A total of 380 endocrine surgery patients (19 centres, 12 countries) were analysed (224 thyroidectomies, 116 parathyroidectomies, 40 adrenalectomies). Ninety-seven percent were elective, and 63% needed surgery within 4 weeks. Eight percent were initially deferred but had surgery during the pandemic; less than 1% percent was deferred for more than 6 months. Decision-making was affected by capacity, COVID-19 status or the pandemic in 17%, 5% and 7% of cases. Indication was cancer/worrying lesion in 61% of thyroidectomies and 73% of adrenalectomies and calcium 2.80 mmol/l or greater in 50% of parathyroidectomies. COVID-19 status was unknown at presentation in 92% and remained unknown before surgery in 30%. Two-thirds were asked to self-isolate before surgery. There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission and no mortalities. Consultant-delivered care occurred in a majority (anaesthetist 96%, primary surgeon 76%). Post-operative vocal cord check was reported in only 14% of neck endocrine operations. Both of these observations are likely to reflect modification of practice due to the pandemic.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected endocrine surgical decision-making, case mix and personnel delivering care. Significant variation was seen in COVID-19 risk mitigation measures. COVID-19-related complications were uncommon. This analysis demonstrates the safety of endocrine surgery during this pandemic.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00268-021-06099-z.

Increased complications in patients who test COVID-19 positive after elective surgery and implications for pre and postoperative screening

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the adoption of protocols to minimize risk of periprocedural complications associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. This typically involves a preoperative symptom screen and nasal swab RT-PCR test for viral RNA. Asymptomatic patients with a negative COVID-19 test are cleared for surgery. However, little is known about the rate of postoperative COVID-19 positivity among elective surgical patients, risk factors for this group and rate of complications.

Methods

This prospective multicenter study included all patients undergoing elective surgery at 170 Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals across the United States. Patients were divided into groups based on first positive COVID-19 test within 30 days after surgery (COVID[-/+]), before surgery (COVID[+/−]) or negative throughout (COVID[−/−]). The cumulative incidence, risk factors for and complications of COVID[-/+], were estimated using univariate analysis, exact matching, and multivariable regression.

Results

Between March 1 and December 1, 2020 90,093 patients underwent elective surgery. Of these, 60,853 met inclusion criteria, of which 310 (0.5%) were in the COVID[-/+] group. Adjusted multivariable logistic regression identified female sex, end stage renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, cancer, cirrhosis, and undergoing neurosurgical procedures as risk factors for being in the COVID[-/+] group. After matching on current procedural terminology code and month of procedure, multivariable Poisson regression estimated the complication rate ratio for the COVID[-/+] group vs. COVID[−/−] to be 8.4 (C.I. 4.9–14.4) for pulmonary complications, 3.0 (2.2, 4.1) for major complications, and 2.6 (1.9, 3.4) for any complication.

Discussion

Despite preoperative COVID-19 screening, there remains a risk of COVID infection within 30 days after elective surgery. This risk is increased for patients with a high comorbidity burden and those undergoing neurosurgical procedures. Higher intensity preoperative screening and closer postoperative monitoring is warranted in such patients because they have a significantly elevated risk of postoperative complications.