Thoracic computerised tomography scans in one hundred eighteen orthopaedic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: identification of chest lesions; added values; help in managing patients; burden on the computerised tomography scan department

An Umbrella Review With Meta-Analysis of Chest Computed Tomography for Diagnosis of COVID-19: Considerations for Trauma Patient Management

Background

RT-PCR testing is the standard for diagnosis of COVID-19, although it has its suboptimal sensitivity. Chest computed tomography (CT) has been proposed as an additional tool with diagnostic value, and several reports from primary and secondary studies that assessed its diagnostic accuracy are already available. To inform recommendations and practice regarding the use of chest CT in the in the trauma setting, we sought to identify, appraise, and summarize the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of chest CT for diagnosis of COVID-19, and its application in emergency trauma surgery patients; overcoming limitations of previous reports regarding chest CT accuracy and discussing important considerations regarding its role in this setting.

Methods

We conducted an umbrella review using Living Overview of Evidence platform for COVID-19, which performs regular automated searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and more than 30 other sources. The review was conducted following the JBI methodology for systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for grading the certainty of the evidence is reported (registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42020198267).

Results

Thirty studies that fulfilled selection criteria were included; 19 primary studies provided estimates of sensitivity (0.91, 95%CI = [0.88–0.93]) and specificity (0.73, 95%CI = [0.61; 0.82]) of chest CT for COVID-19. No correlation was found between sensitivities and specificities (ρ = 0.22, IC95% [–0.33; 0.66]). Diagnostic odds ratio was estimated at: DOR = 27.5, 95%CI (14.7; 48.5). Evidence for sensitivity estimates was graded as MODERATE, and for specificity estimates it was graded as LOW.

Conclusion

The value of chest CT appears to be that of an additional screening tool that can easily detect PCR false negatives, which are reportedly highly frequent. Upon the absence of PCR testing and impossibility to perform RT-PCR in trauma patients, chest CT can serve as a substitute with increased value and easy implementation.

Systematic Review Registration

[www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42020198267].

Diagnostic Performance of Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests, Chest Computed Tomography, and Lung Point-of-Care-Ultrasonography for SARS-CoV-2 Compared with RT-PCR Testing: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The comparative performance of various diagnostic methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the comparison of the 3 index test performances of rapid antigen diagnostic tests (RDTs), chest computed tomography (CT), and lung point-of-care-ultrasonography (US) with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the reference standard, to provide more evidence-based data on the appropriate use of these index tests. (2) Methods: We retrieved data from electronic literature searches of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from 1 January 2020, to 1 April 2021. Diagnostic performance was examined using bivariate random-effects diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) models. (3) Results: Of the 3992 studies identified in our search, 118 including 69,445 participants met our selection criteria. Among these, 69 RDT, 38 CT, and 15 US studies in the pairwise meta-analysis were included for DTA with NMA. CT and US had high sensitivity of 0.852 (95% credible interval (CrI), 0.791–0.914) and 0.879 (95% CrI, 0.784–0.973), respectively. RDT had high specificity, 0.978 (95% CrI, 0.960–0.996). In accuracy assessment, RDT and CT had a relatively higher than US. However, there was no significant difference in accuracy between the 3 index tests. (4) Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that, compared with the reference standard RT-PCR, the 3 index tests (RDTs, chest CT, and lung US) had similar and complementary performances for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. To manage and control COVID-19 effectively, future large-scale prospective studies could be used to obtain an optimal timely diagnostic process that identifies the condition of the patient accurately.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Our March 2021 edition of this review showed thoracic imaging computed tomography (CT) to be sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. This new edition is an update of the review.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19; assess the rate of positive imaging in people who had an initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negative result and a positive RT-PCR result on follow-up; and evaluate the accuracy of thoracic imaging for screening COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals. The secondary objective was to assess threshold effects of index test positivity on accuracy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 17 February 2021. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19. Studies had to assess chest CT, chest X-ray, or ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19, use a reference standard that included RT-PCR, and report estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which we could compute estimates. We excluded studies that used imaging as part of the reference standard and studies that excluded participants with normal index test results.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. We presented sensitivity and specificity per study on paired forest plots, and summarized pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 98 studies in this review. Of these, 94 were included for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in the evaluation of people with suspected COVID-19. Eight studies were included for assessing the rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results and positive RT-PCR results on follow-up, and 10 studies were included for evaluating the accuracy of thoracic imaging for imagining asymptomatic individuals. For all 98 included studies, risk of bias was high or unclear in 52 (53%) studies with respect to participant selection, in 64 (65%) studies with respect to reference standard, in 46 (47%) studies with respect to index test, and in 48 (49%) studies with respect to flow and timing. Concerns about the applicability of the evidence to: participants were high or unclear in eight (8%) studies; index test were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies; and reference standard were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies. Imaging in people with suspected COVID-19 We included 94 studies. Eighty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality, and seven studies evaluated two imaging modalities. All studies used RT-PCR alone or in combination with other criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms, positive contacts) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (69 studies, 28285 participants, 14,342 (51%) cases), sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100%, and specificities from 10% to 99%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6 to 89.6), and pooled specificity was 78.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 82.3). Definition for index test positivity was a source of heterogeneity for sensitivity, but not specificity. Reference standard was not a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray (17 studies, 8529 participants, 5303 (62%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 44% to 94% and specificity from 24 to 93%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 73.1% (95% CI 64. to -80.5), and pooled specificity was 73.3% (95% CI 61.9 to 82.2). Definition for index test positivity was not found to be a source of heterogeneity. Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. For ultrasound of the lungs (15 studies, 2410 participants, 1158 (48%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 73% to 94% and the specificity ranged from 21% to 98%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 88.9% (95% CI 84.9 to 92.0), and the pooled specificity was 72.2% (95% CI 58.8 to 82.5). Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. Indirect comparisons of modalities evaluated across all 94 studies indicated that chest CT and ultrasound gave higher sensitivity estimates than X-ray (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Chest CT and ultrasound gave similar sensitivities (P=0.42). All modalities had similar specificities (CT versus X-ray P = 0.36; CT versus ultrasound P = 0.32; X-ray versus ultrasound P = 0.89). Imaging in PCR-negative people who subsequently became positive For rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results, we included 8 studies (7 CT, 1 ultrasound) with a total of 198 participants suspected of having COVID-19, all of whom had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Most studies (7/8) evaluated CT. Of 177 participants with initially negative RT-PCR who had positive RT-PCR results on follow-up testing, 75.8% (95% CI 45.3 to 92.2) had positive CT findings. Imaging in asymptomatic PCR-positive people For imaging asymptomatic individuals, we included 10 studies (7 CT, 1 X-ray, 2 ultrasound) with a total of 3548 asymptomatic participants, of whom 364 (10%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (7 studies, 3134 participants, 315 (10%) cases), the pooled sensitivity was 55.7% (95% CI 35.4 to 74.3) and the pooled specificity was 91.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 95.7).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chest CT and ultrasound of the lungs are sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for ruling out COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. The uncertainty resulting from high or unclear risk of bias and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

An optimized CNN based automated COVID-19 lung infection identification technique from C.T. images

The Novel Coronavirus, commonly known as COVID-19, is a highly contagious disease that spreads all over the globe has brought great suffering. The symptoms have made all ages suffer a lot. The diagnostics of COVID-19 is an excellent challenge for the medical field as the mutated form of the virus gives out its symptoms in different forms. The main diagnostics to be involved in this infection of COVID-19 is the Lung operation. Especially the automatic detection of the lungs' infection using chest X-rays provides the comprehensive possibility for healthcare professionals to develop hospital procedures to handle this COVID-19. Computed tomography scans are used to diagnose the lungs' infection caused by the Coronavirus, whereas the C.T. scans break the infected region from lung lesions. It is imperative to measure the disease progression, which is challenging to track down and treat accurately. Currently, Segmenting the contaminated regions from the C.T. slices can create loads of problems, which involves more alteration in contamination nature and minor power disagreement in the center of the infected tissues and the typical material. This chapter aims to segment the infection in the lungs using SqueezeNet as the Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to recognize the contaminated regions automatically. This approach may be useful to help in the accuracy of the C.T more accurately. It has been ensured based on Dice scores, sensitivity, and high precision, specificity. The results achieved with the proposed model are low for the former and directly proportional to the latter compared with existing methods.

Covid-19 orthopedic trauma patients characteristics and management during the first pandemic period: report from a single institution in Italy

Purpose

COVID-19 disease is a declared pandemic, affecting all aspects of healthcare, including orthopedics. The aim of this study is to describe the COVID-19 orthopedic trauma patients characteristics and management in a dedicated Orthopedic and Traumatology Hospital in Italy during the first pandemic period.

Material and methods

A cohort of 25 consecutive patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection were retrospectively analyzed. Health system rearrangement, patients’ clinical presentation, diagnostic tools role, laboratory finding, treatment and outcomes were evaluated.

Results

Health system rearrangement was fast. There was no clear prevalence of comorbidity or surgery type between confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases. Nine positive swabs tests and 14 cases with only suspected CT scan findings were recorded. Several laboratory changes have been reported since the onset of symptoms: anemia, leukocytosis, lymphopenia, coagulation abnormalities, alkaline phosphatase, liver enzymes and C-reactive protein alterations. Nineteen patients were treated by oxygen supplement, three patients were administered antivirals, eight antibiotic therapy, and nine hydroxychloroquine. The number of discharges reported in this study was greater than 52% and the number of deaths reached 20%.

Conclusion

To our experience, the development of patient management algorithms allows the differentiation of the clinical pathways of negative and suspected/positive patients, reducing exposure, and virus spreading. The execution of swabs on all patients allows an early diagnosis and a more adequate management. Considering the different therapy patterns used, there were no significant differences, but anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis administered to all the orthopedic patients may have contributed to complications and mortality rates reduction.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Our 2020 edition of this review showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive and moderately specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this update, we include new relevant studies, and have removed studies with case-control designs, and those not intended to be diagnostic test accuracy studies.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 30 September 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19 and that reported estimates of test accuracy or provided data from which we could compute estimates.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list. We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and we summarised pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented the uncertainty of accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 studies with 19,775 participants suspected of having COVID-19, of whom 10,155 (51%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Forty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality each, and four studies evaluated two imaging modalities each. All studies used RT-PCR as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, with 47 studies using only RT-PCR and four studies using a combination of RT-PCR and other criteria (such as clinical signs, imaging tests, positive contacts, and follow-up phone calls) as the reference standard. Studies were conducted in Europe (33), Asia (13), North America (3) and South America (2); including only adults (26), all ages (21), children only (1), adults over 70 years (1), and unclear (2); in inpatients (2), outpatients (32), and setting unclear (17). Risk of bias was high or unclear in thirty-two (63%) studies with respect to participant selection, 40 (78%) studies with respect to reference standard, 30 (59%) studies with respect to index test, and 24 (47%) studies with respect to participant flow. For chest CT (41 studies, 16,133 participants, 8110 (50%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 25.4% to 97.4%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 87.9% (95% CI 84.6 to 90.6) and the pooled specificity was 80.0% (95% CI 74.9 to 84.3). There was no statistical evidence indicating that reference standard conduct and definition for index test positivity were sources of heterogeneity for CT studies. Nine chest CT studies (2807 participants, 1139 (41%) cases) used the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) scoring system, which has five thresholds to define index test positivity. At a CO-RADS threshold of 5 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 41.5% to 77.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 67.0% (95% CI 56.4 to 76.2); the specificity ranged from 83.5% to 96.2%; and the pooled specificity was 91.3% (95% CI 87.6 to 94.0). At a CO-RADS threshold of 4 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 92.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 83.5% (95% CI 74.4 to 89.7); the specificity ranged from 77.2% to 90.4% and the pooled specificity was 83.6% (95% CI 80.5 to 86.4). For chest X-ray (9 studies, 3694 participants, 2111 (57%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 51.9% to 94.4% and specificity ranged from 40.4% to 88.9%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 80.6% (95% CI 69.1 to 88.6) and the pooled specificity was 71.5% (95% CI 59.8 to 80.8). For ultrasound of the lungs (5 studies, 446 participants, 211 (47%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 68.2% to 96.8% and specificity ranged from 21.3% to 78.9%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 86.4% (95% CI 72.7 to 93.9) and the pooled specificity was 54.6% (95% CI 35.3 to 72.6). Based on an indirect comparison using all included studies, chest CT had a higher specificity than ultrasound. For indirect comparisons of chest CT and chest X-ray, or chest X-ray and ultrasound, the data did not show differences in specificity or sensitivity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Ultrasound is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for excluding COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest in the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices.

International trauma care: initial European approaches during the COVID 19 pandemic

The world was not prepared for the global of pandemic in early 2020 with the arrival of COVID 19. Europe has some of the most developed health care systems in the world and this article explains the initial response to the pandemic from an orthopaedic and trauma viewpoint from 8 nations. Italy reported the first cluster in February, which then rapidly spread around the continent, requiring a rapid reorganization of services. The reports highlight how elective surgery was universally stopped, surgical services were reconfigured, and new practices, such as the widespread use of telemedicine, may well become permanent. It also emphasizes how the pandemic has re-educated us on the importance of a consistent and central approach to deal with a global health crisis, and how medical services need to remain flexible and responsive to new ways of working.

Perioperative management of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19: review and recommendations for perioperative management from a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines for perioperative management of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) are mainly based on extrapolated evidence or expert opinion. We aimed to systematically investigate how COVID-19 affects perioperative management and clinical outcomes, to develop evidence-based guidelines.

METHODS

First, we conducted a rapid literature review in EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (January 1 to July 1, 2020), using a predefined protocol. Second, we performed a retrospective cohort analysis of 166 women undergoing Caesarean section at Tongji Hospital, Wuhan during the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic, imaging, laboratory, and clinical data were obtained from electronic medical records.

RESULTS

The review identified 26 studies, mainly case reports/series. One large cohort reported greater mortality in elective surgery patients diagnosed after, rather than before surgery. Higher 30 day mortality was associated with emergency surgery, major surgery, poorer preoperative condition and surgery for malignancy. Regional anaesthesia was favoured in most studies and personal protective equipment (PPE) was generally used by healthcare workers (HCWs), but its use was poorly described for patients. In the retrospective cohort study, duration of surgery, oxygen therapy and hospital stay were longer in suspected or confirmed patients than negative patients, but there were no differences in neonatal outcomes. None of the 262 participating HCWs was infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) when using level 3 PPE perioperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

When COVID-19 is suspected, testing should be considered before non-urgent surgery. Until further evidence is available, HCWs should use level 3 PPE perioperatively for suspected or confirmed patients, but research is needed on its timing and specifications. Further research must examine longer-term outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42020182891 (PROSPERO).

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Early research showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive but not specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, this is a rapidly developing field and these findings need to be re-evaluated in the light of new research. This is the first update of this 'living systematic review'. This update focuses on people suspected of having COVID-19 and excludes studies with only confirmed COVID-19 participants.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 22 June 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of all designs that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19, and which reported estimates of test accuracy, or provided data from which estimates could be computed. When studies used a variety of reference standards, we retained the classification of participants as COVID-19 positive or negative as used in the study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list independently, in duplicate. We categorised included studies into three groups based on classification of index test results: studies that reported specific criteria for index test positivity (group 1); studies that did not report specific criteria, but had the test reader(s) explicitly classify the imaging test result as either COVID-19 positive or negative (group 2); and studies that reported an overview of index test findings, without explicitly classifying the imaging test as either COVID-19 positive or negative (group 3). We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and summarised in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies: 30 were cross-sectional studies with 8491 participants suspected of COVID-19, of which 4575 (54%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19; four were case-control studies with 848 cases and controls in total, of which 464 (55%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest CT was evaluated in 31 studies (8014 participants, 4224 (53%) cases), chest X-ray in three studies (1243 participants, 784 (63%) cases), and ultrasound of the lungs in one study (100 participants, 31 (31%) cases). Twenty-six per cent (9/34) of all studies were available only as preprints. Nineteen studies were conducted in Asia, 10 in Europe, four in North America and one in Australia. Sixteen studies included only adults, 15 studies included both adults and children and one included only children. Two studies did not report the ages of participants. Twenty-four studies included inpatients, four studies included outpatients, while the remaining six studies were conducted in unclear settings. The majority of included studies had a high or unclear risk of bias with respect to participant selection, index test, reference standard, and participant flow. For chest CT in suspected COVID-19 participants (31 studies, 8014 participants, 4224 (53%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 57.4% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 0% to 96.0%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT in suspected COVID-19 participants was 89.9% (95% CI 85.7 to 92.9) and the pooled specificity was 61.1% (95% CI 42.3 to 77.1). Sensitivity analyses showed that when the studies from China were excluded, the studies from other countries demonstrated higher specificity compared to the overall included studies. When studies that did not classify index tests as positive or negative for COVID-19 (group 3) were excluded, the remaining studies (groups 1 and 2) demonstrated higher specificity compared to the overall included studies. Sensitivity analyses limited to cross-sectional studies, or studies where at least two reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests were conducted if the first was negative, did not substantively alter the accuracy estimates. We did not identify publication status as a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray in suspected COVID-19 participants (3 studies, 1243 participants, 784 (63%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 56.9% to 89.0% and specificity from 11.1% to 88.9%. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound of the lungs in suspected COVID-19 participants (1 study, 100 participants, 31 (31%) cases) were 96.8% and 62.3%, respectively. We could not perform a meta-analysis for chest X-ray or ultrasound due to the limited number of included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in suspected patients, meaning that CT may have limited capability in differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. However, we are limited in our confidence in these results due to the poor study quality and the heterogeneity of included studies. Because of limited data, accuracy estimates of chest X-ray and ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of suspected COVID-19 cases should be carefully interpreted. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest on the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices. Planned updates of this review will aim to: increase precision around the accuracy estimates for chest CT (ideally with low risk of bias studies); obtain further data to inform accuracy of chest X-rays and ultrasound; and obtain data to further fulfil secondary objectives (e.g. 'threshold' effects, comparing accuracy estimates across different imaging modalities) to inform the utility of imaging along different diagnostic pathways.

Post-COVID-19 return to elective orthopaedic surgery-is rescheduling just a reboot process? Which timing for tests? Is chest CT scan still useful? Safety of the first hundred elective cases? How to explain the "new normality health organization" to patients?

PURPOSE

The long incubation period and asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 present considerable challenges for health care institutions when patients return to elective surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the first adult elective cases performed between May 18, 2020 and June 14, 2020, after the end of lockdown was analysed in Belgium to answer the following questions: (1) for the 236 cancelled patients during the outbreak, how easy was rescheduling? (2) How useful was universal RT-PCR testing and chest CT scan for the 211 orthopaedic and trauma admissions? (3) How were surgical difficulty category, number of operations and complications different when compared to the pre-COVID period? (4) How would patients balance the benefit of surgery against the unknown risk of developing COVID-19?

RESULTS

Before surgery, blood tests for anaesthesiology and imaging related to the surgical procedure were scheduled prior to universal testing (COVID-19 PCR and chest CT) performed 72-120 hours before surgery. Among the 211 asymptomatic patients who were tested before surgery, six had positive PCR, while no abnormality was found on the chest CT scan of all the patients. With this timing for tests, the 104 patients included in the current study for elective surgery were free of disease before undergoing surgery and remained without COVID-19 after surgery. Among the 366 cancelled patients during the outbreak, only 12% of the patients accepted to proceed with rescheduling immediately. Therefore, this resulted in a 70% reduction for elective surgery and in a 50% reduction for arthroplasties as compared to pre-COVID period. The rate of complications was not increased during the post-COVID period. A portion of patients have confused idea of screening and have difficulty to perceive the new rules of health organization.

CONCLUSIONS

Resumption of elective surgical procedures appears more difficult for patients than for surgeons with a low percentage of cancelled patients accepting to reschedule surgery. Universal testing allowed securing patients; however, surgeons must explore better patient perceptions regarding COVID-19 to facilitate a fully informed decision in the current period.