Should we be re-starting elective surgery?

Use of Telemedicine for Postdischarge Assessment of the Surgical Wound: International Cohort Study, and Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether remote wound reviews using telemedicine can be safely upscaled, and if standardized assessment tools are needed.

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common complication of surgery worldwide, and frequently occurs after hospital discharge. Evidence to support implementation of telemedicine during postoperative recovery will be an essential component of pandemic recovery.

METHODS

The primary outcome of this study was SSI reported up to 30 days after surgery (SSI), comparing rates reported using telemedicine (telephone and/or video assessment) to those with in-person review. The first part of this study analyzed primary data from an international cohort study of adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery who were discharged from hospital before 30 days after surgery. The second part combined this data with the results of a systematic review to perform a meta-analysis of all available data conducted in accordance with PRIMSA guidelines (PROSPERO:192596).

RESULTS

The cohort study included 15,358 patients from 66 countries (8069 high, 4448 middle, 1744 low income). Of these, 6907 (45.0%) were followed up using telemedicine. The SSI rate reported using telemedicine was slightly lower than with in-person follow-up (13.4% vs 11.1%, P <0.001), which persisted after risk adjustment in a mixed-effects model (adjusted odds ratio: 0.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.63-0.84, P <0.001). This association was consistent across sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a propensity-score matched model. In 9 eligible nonrandomized studies identified, a pooled mean of 64% of patients underwent telemedicine follow-up. Upon meta-analysis, the SSI rate reported was lower with telemedicine (odds ratio: 0.67, 0.47-0.94) than in-person (reference) follow-up ( I2 =0.45, P =0.12), although there a high risk of bias in included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of telemedicine to assess the surgical wound postdischarge is feasible, but risks underreporting of SSI. Standardized tools for remote assessment of SSI must be evaluated and adopted as telemedicine is upscaled globally.

Analysis of patient outcomes after urological surgery during the second and third waves of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in a high incidence area

OBJECTIVE

To analyze surgical safety through postoperative COVID-19 incidence and mortality at the urology department of a tertiary hospital located in Madrid (Spain).

METHODS

Observational, prospective study including all patients undergoing urological surgery from 1st March 2020 to 28th February 2021. According to the hospital organization and local epidemiological situation we delimitate three epidemic waves. A set of screening and protective measures was applied from 4th May onwards. Demographic, baseline, surgical and perioperative variables, as well as postoperative outcomes, were collected. Telephone follow-up was performed at least 3 weeks after hospital discharge.

RESULTS

940 urological surgeries were performed, 12 of them had to be rescheduled due to active or recent SARS-CoV-2 infection identified by the screening protocol. Thirty-one patients developed COVID-19 (3.3% incidence) and 7 died (22.6% mortality). The average time to onset of symptoms was 62.6 days after discharge, being 25 cases attributable to community transmission. The remaining 6 cases, due to in-hospital transmission, had worse outcomes. Five of them were identified during the first wave, especially when no preoperative PCR was obtained. In contrast, during the second and third waves, fewer and milder cases were diagnosed, with just 1 in-hospital transmission among 857 urological patients.

CONCLUSIONS

After implementing complete protective measures, postoperative in-hospital COVID-19 cases almost disappeared, even during the second and third waves. Most of the cases were due to community transmission and thus driven by the general epidemiological situation. While hospitals follow recommendations to avoid COVID-19 infection, urological surgery remains safe and can be maintained.

Rate of COVID-19 infection and 30 day mortality between blue and green (dedicated COVID-19 safe) pathways: Results from phase 1 and 2 of the UK foot and ankle COVID-19 national (UK-FAlCoN) audit

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim was to determine the differences in COVID-19 infection rate and 30-day mortality in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery between different treatment pathways over the two phases of the UK-FALCON audit, spanning the first and second UK national lockdowns.

SETTING

This was an ambispective (retrospective Phase 1 and prospective Phase 2) national audit of foot and ankle procedures in the UK in 2020 completed between 13th January 2020 and 30th November 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

All adult patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery in an operating theatre during the study period were included from 46 participating centres in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients were categorised as either a green pathway (designated COVID-19 free) or blue pathway (no protocols to prevent COVID-19 infection).

RESULTS

10,846 patients were included, 6644 from phase 1 and 4202 from phase 2. Over the 2 phases the infection rate on a blue pathway was 1.07% (69/6470) and 0.21% on a green pathway (9/4280). In phase 1, there was no significant difference in the COVID-19 perioperative infection rate between the blue and green pathways in any element of the first phase (pre-lockdown (p = .109), lockdown (p = .923) or post-lockdown (p = .577)). However, in phase 2 there was a significant reduction in perioperative infection rate when using the green pathway in both the pre-lockdown (p < .001) and lockdown periods (Odd's Ratio 0.077, p < .001). There was no significant difference in COVID-19 related mortality between pathways.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a five-fold reduction in the perioperative COVID-19 infection rate when using designated COVID-19 green pathways over the whole study period; however the success of the pathways only became significant in phase 2 of the study, where there was a 13-fold reduction in infection rate. The study shows a developing success to using green pathways in reducing the risk to patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery.

Safe provision of elective endocrine surgery operations amid the COVID-19 crisis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the provision of clinical services (perioperative clinical outcomes and productivity) of the department of endocrine and general surgery at a teaching hospital in the UK.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who were operated in our department during two periods: 1 April to 31 October 2019 (pre-COVID-19 period) and 1 April to 31 October 2020 (COVID-19 period). The perioperative clinical outcomes and productivity of our department for the two time periods were compared.

RESULTS

In the pre-COVID-19 period, 130 operations were carried out, whereas in the COVID-19 group, this reduced to 89. The baseline characteristics between the two groups did not significantly differ. Parathyroid operations decreased significantly by 68% between the two study periods. Overall, during the COVID-19 phase, the department maintained 68% of its operating workload compared with the respective 2019 time period. The clinical outcomes for the patients who had a thyroid/parathyroid/adrenal operation were not statistically different for the two study periods. There were no COVID-19 related perioperative complications for any of the operated patients and no patient tested positive for COVID-19 while an inpatient. For the COVID-19 group, the department maintained 67% of its outpatient appointments for endocrine surgery and 26% for general surgery pathologies.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly reduced the clinical activity of our department. However, it is possible to continue providing clinical services for urgent/cancer cases with the appropriate safety measures in place.

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.

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 in Women's health: Pre-operative gynaecological assessment and shared decision making

The National Health Service (NHS) response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought about rapid and innovative changes to surgical care in gynaecology, shared decision making around operative procedures and pre-operative gynaecological pathways. Short-term changes are linked to the redeployment of resources away from elective gynaecology and long-term changes relate to accelerating the streamlining of treatments, telemedicine and education in patient self-management. The speed and recency of the response does not yet permit the creation of a large evidence base for effective and acceptable interventions, apart from anecdotal observations of 'what works well'' good practice and guidance from the Royal Colleges and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Continuity of Cancer Care: The Surgical Experience of Two Large Cancer Hubs in London and Milan

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a large effect on the management of cancer patients. This study reports on the approach and outcomes of cancer patients receiving radical surgery with curative intent between March and September 2020 (in comparison to 2019) in the European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS (IEO) in Milan and the South East London Cancer Alliance (SELCA). Both institutions implemented a COVID-19 minimal pathway where patients were required to self-isolate prior to admission and were swabbed for COVID-19 within 72 h of surgery. Positive patients had surgery deferred until a negative swab. At IEO, radical surgeries declined by 6% as compared to the same period in 2019 (n = 1477 vs. 1560, respectively). Readmissions were required for 3% (n = 41), and <1% (n = 9) developed COVID-19, of which only one had severe disease and died. At SELCA, radical surgeries declined by 34% (n = 1553 vs. 2336). Readmissions were required for 11% (n = 36), <1% (n = 7) developed COVID-19, and none died from it. Whilst a decline in number of surgeries was observed in both centres, the implemented COVID-19 minimal pathways have shown to be safe for cancer patients requiring radical treatment, with limited complications and almost no COVID-19 infections.

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.