Effect of the pandemic on surgical procedures in a tertiary care hospital: A retrospective review

Objectives

The aim of this study was to examine the impact of performing surgeries with necessary precautions and to evaluate demographic characteristics of operated patients during novel coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the infection rates during hospitalization and within 14 days after surgery.

Material and Methods

Between March 15^th, 2020 and April 30^th, 2020, a total of 639 patients who had been operated on in our center were retrospectively analyzed. According to the triage system, the surgical procedures were classified as emergency, time-sensitive, and elective procedures. Data including age, sex, indication for surgery, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, pre- and postoperative symptoms, the presence and/ or absence of reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, type of surgery, surgical site, and documented COVID-19 infections during hospitalization and within 21 days after surgery were recorded.

Results

Of the patients, 60.4% were males and 39.6% were females with a mean age of 43.08 ± 22.68 years. Malignancy was the most common indication for surgery (35.5%), followed by trauma (29.1%). The abdominal area and head and neck region were the most frequent surgical sites in 27.4% and 24.9% of the patients, respectively. Of all surgical procedures, 54.9% were emergency and 43.9% were time-sensitive procedures. Of the patients, 84.2% were in ASA Class I-II while 15.8% patients were in ASA Class III, IV and V. General anesthesia was the most common anesthesia type in 83.9% of the patients. The overall rate of COVID-19 infection was 0.63% in the preoperative period. The rate of COVID-19 infection during and after surgery was 0.31%.

Conclusion

With similar infection rates to the general population, surgeries of all types can be performed safely taking preventive measures in the preand postoperative period. It would be wise to perform surgical treatment without delay in patients with an increased risk for mortality and morbidity in accordance with strict infection control principles.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on hand injuries

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate etiologies of hand injuries in emergency department (ED), to compare the etiologies of hand injuries at the time of this study with the previous year, to assess whether novel coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected the treatment decisions, and to investigate the COVID-19 infection rate within the first 14 days after admission.

METHODS

A total of 229 patients admitted to ED with hand injury between March 15 and April 30, 2020, were included in the study. The control group consisted of 439 ED admissions with hand injury in the previous year (March 15-April 30, 2019). Data including age, sex, cause of trauma, treatment, and COVID-19 infection status within 14 days after ED admission were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The mean age was 32.30±15.63 years in the study group and 30.85±18.54 years in the control group. The number of patients consulted to the surgery department decreased by 52.6% and the number of patients admitted to ED with hand injuries de-creased by 47.6% during the pandemic, compared to the previous year (p=0.0001). The incidence of home accidents increased and the glass cuts and penetrating/perforating injuries were the most common causes during the pandemic most of which occurred at home.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic-mandated social restrictions led to a significant decrease in the number of ED admissions with hand injuries and the type of injuries. The incidence of home accidents increased with more time spent indoors. This study may be a useful guide for ED admissions of hand injury cases and management planning in the current and future pandemics.

Is bipolar hemiarthroplasty an appropriate type of hip articulation following proximal femoral or total femoral resections for musculoskeletal malignancies?

BACKGROUND

Different approaches are applied for reconstruction in patients with a musculoskeletal malignancy which require a proximal femoral or total femoral resection. We aimed to evaluate the treatment outcomes of patients who underwent a proximal femoral or total femoral resection due to bone and soft tissue tumors and had an endoprosthetic reconstruction by a bipolar hemiarthroplasty type of hip articulation.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 133 patients who underwent a proximal femoral or total femoral endoprosthetic replacement after resection of a bone or soft tissue malignancy. There were 74 male and 59 female patients, with a mean age of 55.02 ± 16.92 years (range 11-84 years) and a median follow-up of 24.47 ± 24.45 months (range 6-164 months). Patient demographics, surgical, and oncological data were recorded. Acetabular wear was measured using the classification proposed by Baker. Functional assessment was performed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) functional score.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference among primary diagnostic groups in terms of gender, prosthesis type, trochanter major resection, local recurrence, complication/revision rate, and MSTS Score (p > 0.05, for each parameter). On the other hand, a statistically significant difference was detected in terms of degree of acetabular erosion among diagnostic groups (p < 0.001); the acetabular erosion rate (AER) was found to be lower in patients with metastatic carcinoma than in patients with a diagnosis of primary bone or soft tissue sarcoma. The univariable analysis revealed that the effect of age, primary diagnosis, localization, follow-up time, and presence and number of distant organ metastasis variables on AER were found to be statistically significant (p = 0.018, p = 0.035, p = 0.002, p = 0.007, p = 0.031, p = 0.040, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In patients who undergo a proximal femoral or a total femoral resection due to a musculoskeletal tumor, bipolar hemiarthroplasty is an adequate type of hip articulation method, since it does not affect the revision requirements and functional outcomes of patients with acetabular erosion.

Dorsal or Lateral Approach for Intramedullary Nailing Using Kirschner Wire in Pediatric Radius Diaphyseal Fractures: Does it really matter?

BACKGROUND

Intramedullary nailing is the most preferred fixation method for diaphyseal radius and ulna fractures in the young age group. The aim of this study was to compare the dorsal and lateral entry points in the context of entry site-related complications, fracture union and functional results.

METHODS

This retrospective comparative study included pediatric patients who underwent surgery for isolated diaphyseal radius or both bone forearm fractures with intramedullary nailing using Kirschner wire between January 2013 and January 2019. K-wire was introduced from the distal radius through dorsal entry (Group A) in 19 patients and lateral entry (Group B) in 18 patients. The mean follow-up was 37 months. Complications were noted and functional outcomes were evaluated according to the CHOP criteria.

RESULTS

All fractures were healed. The functional results were determined to be excellent for 30, fair for 4, and poor for 3 patients. The overall complication rate was 18.9%, including distal radius fracture, mild pain in the wrist, and minor loss in ROM. No statistically significant differences were determined between the groups in respect of functional results and complication rates.

CONCLUSION

Good functional results and similar complication rates can be obtained with both dorsal and lateral entry approaches. Stainless steel K-wire is an inexpensive intramedullary fixation implant option, which provides strong stabilization. Distal radius fracture is a newly reported complication for forearm intramedullary nailing. Leaving the implant out of the skin seems safe with the benefit of avoiding a further surgical intervention to extract the implant.