Practical recommendations for gynecologic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic

Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the management of gynecologic cancer: a Spanish survey. Observational, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2) pandemic changed the distribution of healthcare resources, leading in many cases to the suspension of all non-essential treatments and procedures and representing a challenge for medical professionals. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether clinical protocols in gynecologic oncology care were modified as a result of the pandemic and to assess surgeons' perceptions regarding the management of gynecologic cancers".

METHODS

Data were collected through an anonymous and voluntary survey sent via email to healthcare professionals in the field of gynecologic oncology in Spain.

RESULTS

A total of 75 gynecologic oncologists completed the online survey. Of these, 93.2% (69) reported working in public hospitals and 62.5% (45) in tertiary care hospitals. 97.3% (71) were affiliated with hospitals treating patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. 85.1% (63) of the respondents expressed concern about the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and 52.1% (38) indicated that the pandemic impacted the diagnostic and therapeutic quality of care for oncology patients. SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) testing was always performed before surgical interventions by 97.3% (71), being considered a best practice in triage by 94.4% (68). 87.5% (63) reported no change in the type of surgical approach during the pandemic. 62.5% (45) experienced limitations in accessing special personal protective equipment for SARS-CoV-2. An impact on the follow-up of patients with gynecologic cancers due to the pandemic was reported by 70.4% (50).

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the Spanish gynecologic oncologists who responded to our survey reported that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had affected their clinical practice. The primary measures implemented were an increase in telemedicine, restricting outpatient visits to high-risk or symptomatic patients and the use of SARS-CoV-2 screening prior to surgery. No major changes in the surgical approach or management of the treatment of ovarian, endometrial or cervical cancer during the pandemic were reported.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Surgical Training: the Past, the Present and the Future

The COVID-19 pandemic and infection control measures had an unavoidable impact on surgical services. During the first wave of the pandemic, elective surgery, endoscopy, and 'face-to-face' clinics were discontinued after recommendations from professional bodies. In addition, training courses, examinations, conferences, and training rotations were postponed or cancelled. Inadvertently, infection control and prevention measures, both within and outside hospitals, have caused a significant negative impact on training. At the same time, they have given space to new technologies, like telemedicine and platforms for webinars, to blossom. While the recovery phase is well underway in some parts of the world, most surgical services are not operating at full capacity. Unfortunately, some countries are still battling a second or third wave of the pandemic with severely negative consequences on surgical services. Several studies have looked into the impact of COVID-19 on surgical training. Here, an objective overview of studies from different parts of the world is presented. Also, evidence-based solutions are suggested for future surgical training interventions.

Resuming elective surgery after COVID-19: A simulation modelling framework for guiding the phased opening of operating rooms

OBJECTIVE

To develop a 2-stage discrete events simulation (DES) based framework for the evaluation of elective surgery cancellation strategies and resumption scenarios across multiple operational outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study data was derived from the data warehouse and domain knowledge on the operational process of the largest tertiary hospital in Singapore. 34,025 unique cases over 43 operating rooms (ORs) and 18 surgical disciplines performed from 1 January 2019 to 31 May 2020 were extracted for the study. A clustering approach was used in stage 1 of the modelling framework to develop the groups of surgeries that followed distinctive postponement patterns. These clusters were then used as inputs for stage 2 where the DES model was used to evaluate alternative phased resumption strategies considering the outcomes of OR utilization, waiting times to surgeries and the time to clear the backlogs.

RESULTS

The tool enabled us to understand the elective postponement patterns during the COVID-19 partial lockdown period, and evaluate the best phased resumption strategy. Differences in the performance measures were evaluated based on 95% confidence intervals. The results indicate that two of the gradual phased resumption strategies provided lower peak OR and bed utilizations but required a longer time to return to BAU levels. Minimum peak bed demands could also be reduced by approximately 14 beds daily with the gradual resumption strategy, whilst the maximum peak bed demands by approximately 8.2 beds. Peak OR utilization could be reduced to 92% for gradual resumption as compared to a minimum peak of 94.2% with the full resumption strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2-stage modelling framework coupled with a user-friendly visualization interface were key enablers for understanding the elective surgery postponement patterns during a partial lockdown phase. The DES model enabled the identification and evaluation of optimal phased resumption policies across multiple important operational outcome measures.

LAY ABSTRACT

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, most healthcare systems suspended their non-urgent elective surgery services. This strategy was undertaken as a means to expand surge capacity, through the preservation of structural resources (such as operating theaters, ICU beds, and ventilators), consumables (such as personal protective equipment and medications), and critical healthcare manpower. As a result, some patients had less-essential surgeries postponed due to the pandemic. As the first wave of the pandemic waned, there was an urgent need to quickly develop optimal strategies for the resumption of these surgeries. We developed a 2-stage discrete events simulation (DES) framework based on 34,025 unique cases over 43 operating rooms (ORs) and 18 surgical disciplines performed from 1 January 2019 to 31 May 2020 captured in the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) enterprise data warehouse. The outcomes evaluated were OR utilization, waiting times to surgeries and time to clear the backlogs. A user-friendly visualization interface was developed to enable decision makers to determine the most promising surgery resumption strategy across these outcomes. Hospitals globally can make use of the modelling framework to adapt to their own surgical systems to evaluate strategies for postponement and resumption of elective surgeries.

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.

The Effect of Coronavirus Disease 2019 on Reproduction System and Fertility

As of October 9, 2020, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was recorded to have infected more than 235 countries and 36,361,054 people globally, and 1,056,186 people died from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In early October 2020, it was reported that the rate of increase in new cases reached 300,000 cases per day. A scientific reference source about COVID-19 in pregnancy and fertility system based on the results of previous research. By conducting a literature search that was carried out until October 12, 2020, through the PubMed and Google Scholar databases using the keyword COVID-19 and pregnancy, 20 articles were used as a reference source. Human SARS-CoV appeared in China, causing a deadly epidemic 18 years ago. Novel coronavirus-2019 infects target cells by binding to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) through its surface spike protein. nCoV-2 modulates ACE2 expression and causes serious injury, similar to SARS-CoV. There is the possibility that the SARS-CoV-2 mechanism can affect fertility on female, namely, SARS-CoV-2 can harm ovarian tissue and granulosa cells, and reduce ovarian function and quality of oocytes, and can make infertility or miscarriage; also damage the endometrial epithelium and affect early embryo implantation. COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2 which is an acute infectious disease that mostly affects the respiratory system, but can also attack the reproductive system.

Collateral damage of COVID-19 pandemic: The impact on a gynecologic surgery department

Objective

This study focuses on changes in gynecologic surgical activity at Hospital Foch, Paris, France during the first French COVID lockdown in 2020. Additional goals include the evaluation the extent of the postponement suffered for each type of surgery and estimate the possible negative impact for patients.

Study design

Single-center, retrospective, chart-review cohort study in the gynecology department of Hospital Foch. Comparison of all patients scheduled, postponed and operated during the first COVID lockdown (March 14, to May 11, 2020) versus the same period in 2019. Postponed surgeries were classified into 4 scheduling interval categories according to the Society of Gynecology Oncology (SGO) recommendations: urgent (without delay), semi-urgent (1–4 weeks), non-urgent (>4–12 weeks) and elective (>3 months) and evaluated to determine whether COVID-19-related delays of surgeries fell within guidelines. The potential “loss of chance” or medical risk associated with postponed surgeries was estimated according to a composite criterion including death, aggravation of expected tumor stages/grades in cancers, increase in surgical complexity compared to that initially planned, need for preoperative transfusions, start of morphine consumption during preoperative treatment for opiate-naive patients, additional hospitalization or consultations in emergency room and delay in treatment when surgery was urgent.

Results

During the 2020 French COVID lockdown, 61 patients had a surgical procedure and 114 were postponed; in the comparator 2019 group, 232 patients underwent surgical procedures, indicating an overall decrease of 65% of activity. Analysis of differences between the two years revealed a reduction of 64% in emergency procedures, 90% of functional pathologies, and 13% of cancers. According to SGO guidelines, the only type of surgical procedures that had excessive delay was the semi-urgent group, where time to surgery was 6.7 weeks [range 5.4–10 weeks] instead of the recommended interval of 1–4 weeks. Among postponed surgeries there were 10 patients (8.7%) with a potential “loss of chance” according to the composite criteria, all included in the semi-urgent group.

Conclusion

The COVID 19 pandemic was responsible for a significant decrease of activity in the surgical department of Hospital Foch. Difficulty of rescheduling surgeries was responsible for an increased delay in semi-urgent operations. In almost 9% of postponed surgeries, there was a potential “loss of chance”, which likely represents only the tip of iceberg of collateral damages due to COVID 19 pandemic in this surgical unit. These data show the importance of continuing to treat pathologies requiring urgent or semi-urgent surgery during pandemics.

COVID-19 transmission in surgical smoke during laparoscopy and open surgery: a systematic review

AIM

To evaluate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in surgical smoke and aerosols during laparoscopy and open surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021268366) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Articles were selected based on the title and abstract as well as the type of publication. Primary objectives of the study were to assess potential risk of contamination as well as comparing laparoscopic and open procedures in terms of danger of SARS-COV-2 transmission.

RESULTS

Fifty-three articles were identified and included in the review. No case of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to operating room personnel during open or minimally invasive surgery was identified at the time the review was conducted. Furthermore, no significant difference was observed between smoke and aerosols generated from open surgery and those generated from minimally invasive surgery.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 transmission in surgical smoke and aerosols has yet to be observed. However, given the potential risk of viral transmission, caution should be exercised when performing surgery to ensure the safety of the operating room personnel. When clinically indicated and when protective measures can be implemented, minimally invasive surgery should be performed instead of open surgery to ensure optimal patient outcomes.

Impact of COVID-19 on management of urogynaecology patients: a rapid review of the literature

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted health systems worldwide. There is a continuing need for clinicians to adapt practice to facilitate timely provision of medical care, whilst minimising horizontal transmission. Guidance and recommendations are increasingly available, and this rapid review aimed to provide a timely evidence synthesis on the current recommendations surrounding urogynaecological care.

METHODS

We performed a literature review using PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane and a manual search of national and international societies for management recommendations for urogynaecological patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

Nine guidance documents and 17 articles, including 10 reviews, were included. Virtual clinics are recommended for new and follow-up patients, to assess and initiate treatment, as well as triage patients who require face-to-face appointments. Outpatient investigations such as urodynamics and cystoscopy for benign indications can be deferred. Prolapse and continence surgery should be suspended, except in specific circumstances such as procidentia with upper tract complications and failed pessaries. There is no evidence to support a particular route of surgery, but recommendations are made to minimise COVID-19 transmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Urogynaecological patients face particular challenges owing to inherent vulnerabilities of these populations. Behavioural and medical therapies should be recommended as first line options and initiated via virtual or remote clinics, which are integral to management during the COVID-19 pandemic. Expanding the availability and accessibility of technology will be increasingly required. The majority of outpatient and inpatient procedures can be deferred, but the longer-term effects of such practices are unclear.

Outpatient Hysterectomy versus Inpatient Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to investigate whether outpatient hysterectomy (OH) has benefits when compared with inpatient hysterectomy (IH) regarding postoperative complications, readmissions, operative outcomes, cost, and patient quality of life.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search for studies comparing OH with IH was conducted through PubMed, SAGE, and Scopus from January 2010 to March 2020, without limitations regarding language and study design.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting on the differences between same-day discharge and overnight stay after hysterectomy were included. The study outcomes were overall complication rate, type of complication, readmission after discharge, surgery duration, estimated blood loss, payer savings, hospital savings, and health-related quality of life (HrQoL). Median and range are used to describe non-normal data, while mean ± SD and confidence interval are used to descibe data with normal distribution. A meta-analysis with sensitivity analysis and subgroup analyses was performed.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Eight studies published between 2011 and 2019 with 104,466 patients who underwent hysterectomy were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. All included studies except 1 were found to have a high risk of bias. OH in comparison with IH had a lower overall complication rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.82) and lower rates of wound infection (OR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84), urinary tract infection (OR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.78), need for transfusion (OR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.59), sepsis (OR 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.64), uncontrolled pain (OR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95), and bleeding requiring medical attention (OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.94). In addition, patients who underwent OH had a lower readmission rate (OR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.87), surgery duration (standardized mean difference -0.35; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.08), and estimated blood loss (standardized mean difference -0.63; 95% CI, -0.93 to -0.33) than those who underwent IH. A qualitative analysis found that OH had a poorer patient HrQoL and a lower cost for the hospital as well as the payer.

CONCLUSION

OHs present fewer complications and have a lower readmission rate and estimated blood loss as well as a shorter surgery duration than IHs. OHs also have a cost benefit in comparison with IHs. But patients seem to have a worse HrQoL in the first postoperative week after OH. The high risk of bias of the included studies indicates that well-designed clinical trials and standardization of surgical complication reporting are essential to better address this issue.

Effects of Surgical Delay Due to COVID-19 on Women Requiring Emergency Gynaecological Surgery

In response to the coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, the McGill University Health Centre introduced protocols to protect health care workers during emergency surgeries. These included waiting for a COVID-19 test result or waiting 20 minutes after aerosol-inducing procedures before proceeding with surgery. The following brief communication describes the impact of surgical delay on the outcomes of 3 emergency gynaecologic procedures: dilatation and curettage, laparoscopic salpingectomy, and laparoscopic cystectomy and detorsion. Our results show that delays associated with COVID-19 protocols did not negatively impact patients undergoing these surgeries.

Evaluation of Postoperative Complication with Medically Necessary, Time-Sensitive Scoring System During Acute COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Observational Study

Background

High scores in the Medically Necessary, Time-Sensitive (MeNTS) scoring system, used for elective surgical prioritization during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, are assumed to be associated with worse outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the MeNTS scoring system in patients undergoing elective surgery during restricted capacity of our institution, with or without moderate or severe postoperative complications.

Study Design

In this prospective observational study, MeNTS scores of patients undergoing elective operations during May and June 2020 were calculated. Postoperative complication severity (classified as Group Clavien-Dindo < II or Group Clavien-Dindo ≥ II), as well as Duke Activity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, presence of smoking, leukocytosis, lymphopenia, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), operation and anesthesia characteristics, intensive care requirement and duration, length of hospital stay, rehospitalization, and mortality were noted.

Results

There were 223 patients analyzed. MeNTS score was higher in the Clavien-Dindo ≥ II Group compared with the Clavien-Dindo < II Group (50.98 ± 8.98 vs 44.27 ± 8.90 respectively, p < 0.001). Duke activity status index (DASI) scores were lower, and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class, presence of smoking, leukocytosis, lymphopenia, elevated CRP, and intensive care requirement were higher in the Clavien-Dindo ≥ II Group (p < 0.01). Length of hospital stay was longer in the Clavien-Dindo ≥ II Group (15 [range 2–90] vs 4 [1–30] days; p < 0.001). Mortality was observed in 8 patients. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of MeNTS and DASI were 0.69 and 0.71, respectively, for predicting moderate/severe complications.

Conclusions

Although significant, MeNTS score had low discriminating power in distinguishing patients with moderate/severe complications. Incorporation of a cardiovascular functional capacity measure could improve the scoring system.

Gynecological laparoscopic surgeries in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective study

Objective

The novel coronavirus pandemic led to the suspension of elective surgeries and the diversion of resources and manpower towards pandemic control. However, gynecological emergencies and malignancies must be addressed despite the restricted resources and the need for protective measures against COVID-19. This study aimed to determine the types of gynecological surgeries performed, difficulties encountered, and their outcomes in the setting of the pandemic.

Methods

We performed a prospective cohort study over 6 months at a single tertiary center, including 60 women with gynecological complaints, categorized as emergencies and semi-emergencies, who underwent further surgery. Their surgical outcomes were measured through various parameters.

Results

We found that 68.3% were emergency cases, while the rest were classified as semi-emergencies. Fibroid and adenomyosis with failed medical management (48.3%), followed by cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (10%), and malignancies (10%) accounted for the semi-emergency cases, while ruptured ectopic pregnancies (13.3%) and torsion and ovarian cysts (18.4%) comprised the emergency cases. The decision to incision time between emergency and semi-emergency cases varied widely due to the safety prerequisites during the pandemic, ranging from 1 hour in emergency cases to 48 hours in semi-emergency cases. In addition, we studied the ease of preoperative preparation, patient satisfaction, and the average number of personnel available to run the operation theaters at these times. No serious perioperative adverse events were observed in the present study.

Conclusion

In conclusion, gynecological surgeries could continue to be safely performed with all precautions in place against COVID-19 infection and related morbidities.

COVID-19 in Women's health reducing the risk of infection to patients and staff during acute and elective hospital admission for gynaecological surgery

The novel coronavirus SARS-Cov-2 has changed healthcare on a worldwide scale. This highly contagious respiratory virus has overwhelmed healthcare systems. Many staff were redeployed, and there was widespread cessation of non-urgent outpatient clinics and surgery. Outpatient clinics and theatre areas were converted to COVID-19 wards and intensive care units. Following the first peak, services began to recommence with new triaging and prioritisation guidance to safeguard patients and staff. Different countries and healthcare systems produced differing guidance and, in particular, variation in the best approach to continuing acute and elective surgical procedures. This chapter collates and evaluates the increasing international literature concerning the surgical management of gynaecological conditions during the pandemic, such that clear inferences, recommendations and guidance can be generated to aid clinical practice and safeguard against further major disruption arising from further COVID-19 peaks. The available data are assessed within the context of the current phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) crisis on surgical training: global survey and a proposed framework for recovery

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had a profound impact on surgical services, potentially having a detrimental impact on training opportunities. The aim of this global survey was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on surgical training and to develop a framework for recovery.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted. This was designed by a steering committee of medical educationalists and validated by a group of trainees before dissemination.

RESULTS

A total of 608 responses were obtained from 34 countries and 15 specialties. The results demonstrated major disruption in all aspects of training. The impact was greatest for conferences (525 of 608) and hands-on courses (517 of 608), but less for inpatient care-related training (268 of 608). European trainees were significantly more likely to experience direct training disruption than trainees in Asia (odds ratio 0.15) or Australia (OR 0.10) (χ2 = 87.162, P < 0.001). Alternative training resources (webinars, 359 of 608; educational videos, 234 of 608) have emerged, although trainees expressed some dissatisfaction with them. The collective responses generated a four-pillar framework for training recovery that involved: guidance from training stakeholders with the involvement of trainees; prioritization of training, especially the roles of senior surgeons/trainers; provision of access to alternative/new teaching methods; and measures to address trainee anxiety.

CONCLUSION

Training has been greatly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The introduction of new teaching methods and a focus on training after the pandemic are imperative.

Gynecological Surgery and Its Five Steps Towards Resilience: Minimally Invasive Approach in the COVID-19 Era

After the declaration of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, gynecological surgery joins the readjustment process that this great global health crisis implies. In the light of current literature, the five steps towards its resilience are described as below; (1) Dynamic prioritization of surgical indications and reintroduction of elective surgeries: Diverse surgical prioritization lists are published including the most common gynecological pathologies. (2) Minimally invasive surgery through laparoscopy and robotic assistance: Some authors suggest a theoretical but unproven risk of viral transmission during these approaches because of the aerosol generation. These theories are opposed to the well-proven advantages of these approaches compared to open surgery. (3) Optimization of surgical procedures, according to the recommendations of different societies aimed at reducing the dispersion of aerosols and surgical smoke. (4) Clinical, epidemiological and microbiological screening of all patients awaiting prompt surgery: This screening should be adapted to the local alert state. (5) Protection through the reduction of number of persons present in the operating room, and the use of adapted personal protective equipment according to physical proximity to the patient.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Practice of Hand and Upper Extremity Surgeons

Objective

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the practice of hand and upper extremity surgeons.

Methods

We assessed how the pandemic affected the practice on multiple fronts including professional, personal, and practice aspects. The survey was conducted through an online questionnaire that had six sections: demographics, clinic, elective surgery, emergency surgery, urgent surgery, and human resources. The survey was sent to 586 Kleinert Society members who are all practicing hand and upper extremity surgeons.

Results

We received 35 responses from the United States and 53 from the rest of the world. Based on our findings, the clinic volume was reduced by >50% in the early stages, subsequently returning to a level that was 25-50% lower than pre-COVID-19 times in later stages. A corresponding decrease in elective surgeries was also noted. The need for preoperative COVID-19 tests added to the logistics of surgery, causing delays of three to six hours for emergency cases and >24 hours for urgent cases. The hand surgeons witnessed multiple furloughs, layoffs, and even COVID-19 infections among nursing and support staff. Most hand surgeons continued to perform urgent and emergency surgeries during the pandemic. The application of telemedicine was not popular and had multiple drawbacks. Hand surgeons are modifying their practice by adopting measures such as social distancing, reducing the clinic volume, and using personal protective equipment (PPE).

Conclusions

As COVID-19 is likely to prevail for the foreseeable future, these measures are here to stay. The initial reduction in the clinic and elective volume has improved but has not reached pre-COVID-19 levels, suggesting a slow recovery. As reopening measures will lead to more people rejoining employment, subsequently, more patients with hand-related conditions are likely to present to the clinics. Rapid COVID-19 testing and supply of PPEs will play a crucial role in the near future to enable hand surgeons to continue their service while taking care of their personal health.