Impelling Factors for Contracting COVID-19 Among Surgical Professionals During the Pandemic: A Multinational Cohort Study.

Background: Medical workers, including surgical professionals working in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treating hospitals, were under enormous stress during the pandemic. This global study investigated factors endowing COVID-19 amongst surgical professionals and students. Methods: This global cross-sectional survey was made live on February 18, 2021 and closed for analysis on March 13, 2021. It was freely shared on social and scientific media platforms and was sent via email groups and circulated through a personal network of authors. Chi-square test for independence, and binary logistic regression analysis were carried out on determining predictors of surgical professionals contracting COVID-19. Results: This survey captured the response of 520 surgical professionals from 66 countries. Of the professionals, 92.5% (481/520) reported practising in hospitals managing COVID-19 patients. More than one-fourth (25.6%) of the respondents (133/520) reported suffering from COVID-19 which was more frequent in surgical professionals practising in public sector healthcare institutions (P = 0.001). Thirty-seven percent of those who reported never contracting COVID-19 (139/376) reported being still asked to practice self-isolation and wear a shield without the diagnosis (P = 0.001). Of those who did not contract COVID-19, 75.7% (283/376) were vaccinated (P < 0.001). Surgical professionals undergoing practice in the private sector (odds ratio (OR): 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14 - 0.77; P = 0.011) and receiving two doses of vaccine (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.32 - 0.95; P = 0.031) were identified to enjoy decreased odds of contracting COVID-19. Only 6.9% of those who reported not contracting COVID-19 (26/376) were calculated to have the highest "overall composite level of harm" score (P < 0.001). Conclusions: High prevalence of respondents got COVID-19, which was more frequent in participants working in public sector hospitals. Those who reported contracting COVID-19 were calculated to have the highest level of harm score. Self-isolation or shield, getting two doses of vaccines decreases the odds of contracting COVID-19.

Impelling Factors for Contracting COVID-19 Among Surgical Professionals During the Pandemic: a Multinational Cohort Study

Background Medical workers, including surgical professionals working in COVID-19 treating hospitals, were under enormous stress during the pandemic. This global study investigated factors endowing COVID amongst surgical professionals and students. Methods This global cross-sectional survey was made live on the 18th of February, 2021, and closed for analysis on the 13th of March, 2021. It was freely shared on social and scientific media platforms. It was also sent via email groups and circulated through a personal network of authors. Chi-square test for independence, binary logistic regression analysis was carried on determining predictors of surgical professionals contracting COVID-19. Results This survey captured the response of 520 respondents from 66 countries. 92.29% (503/545) were working in a hospital receiving patients with COVID-19. More than one-fourth (25.5%) caught COVID-19, which was more frequent in participants working in public sector hospitals (P=0.001). 75.7% of those who did not contract Covid (283/376) were vaccinated (P<0.001). Surgical professionals undergoing practice in the private sector (OR: 0.33;95% CI: 0.14–0.77;p=0.011) and getting two doses of vaccines (OR: 0.55;95% CI: 0.32–0.95;p=0.031) had decreased odds of contracting COVID-19. Only 6.9% of those who reported not contracting COVID-19 (26/376) were calculated to have the highest Level of Harm score (LH4) (P<0.001). Conclusions High prevalence of respondents caught COVID-19, which was more frequent in participants working in public sector hospitals. Self-isolation or shield, getting two doses of vaccines decreases the odds of contracting COVID-19. Those who reported contracting COVID-19 were calculated to have the highest Level of Harm score.

Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy for difficult gallbladders: A lifesaving bailout or an incomplete operation? A systematic review

Background Cholecystectomy is one of the commonest abdominal operations performed worldwide. Sometimes, the operation can be technically difficult due to dense adhesions in Calot’s triangle. Conversion to open surgery or subtotal cholecystectomy have been described to deal with these situations. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis on STC suggested high perioperative morbidity associated with STC. These findings are at odds with a previous systematic review and meta-analysis on the topic which concluded that morbidity rates for STC were comparable to those reported for total cholecystectomy. However, both these reviews included patients undergoing Open Subtotal Cholecystectomy (OSTC). This makes it difficult for us to understand the outcomes of LSTC as surgeons are not faced with the choice of converting to open surgery to perform a subtotal cholecystectomy. The choice they face is whether they should perform a LSTC or convert to open surgery to perform a total cholecystectomy. It is, therefore, important to establish the outcomes of LSTC alone (without including patients who underwent OSTC). This is all the more important during COVID-19 pandemic when the complexity of gall stone disease appears to have worsened. There is thus an enhanced need to understand technical nuances and outcomes of LSTC alone. Methods Search strategy: We searched PUBMED (Medline), Google Scholar, and Embase for all relevant English language articles describing experience with LSTC in adult human population (≥18 years) anywhere in the world using key-words like “subtotal cholecystectomy”, “gallbladder resection”, “gallbladder excision”, “gallbladder removal”, “partial”, “incomplete”, “insufficient”, “deroofing”, and “near-total”. Case reports, articles only published as conference s, case series with <5 cases, and reviews were excluded. Only English-language studies were included. Participants: All studies with 5 or more cases, describing any experience with an adult cohort (≥18 years) of patients undergoing STC while attempting a Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy were included. Studies on patients who underwent preoperative cholecystostomy were excluded. Studies that had LSTC as part of another surgery were also excluded as we wanted to understand the morbidity and mortality of LSTC alone. Studies on patients who underwent OSTC (Open from start) were excluded as were those where the LSTC cohort was merged with the OSTC cohort and outcomes of LSTC were not separately reported. Study outcome: Primary outcome measure was early (≤30 days) morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcome measures were bile duct injury, bile leak rates, conversion to open surgery rates, duration of hospital stay, and late (>30 days) morbidity. Results 45 studies were identified, with a total of 2166 patients. Mean age was 55 +/- 15 years with 51% females;53% (n = 390) were elective procedures. The conversion rate was 6.2% (n = 135). Most common indication was acute cholecystitis (n = 763). Different techniques were used with the majority having a closed cystic duct/gallbladder stump (n = 1188, 71%). The most common closure technique was intracorporeal suturing (53%) followed by endoloop closure. There were a total of four, 30-day mortality [1] in this review. Early morbidity (≤30 days) included bile duct injury (0.23%), bile leak rates (18%), intra-abdominal collection (4%). Reoperation was reported in 23 patients (1%), most commonly for unresolving intra-abdominal collections and failed ERCP to control bile leak. Long term follow-up was reported in 30 studies with a median follow up period of 22 months. Late morbidity included incisional hernias (6%), CBD stones (2%), and symptomatic gallstones in 4% (n = 41) with 2% (n = 22) requiring completion of cholecystectomy. Conclusions Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy is an acceptable alternative in patients with a “difficult” Calot’s triangle. However, this has to be taken seriously s it is associated with a high early and late morbidity and mortality.

The global level of harm among surgical professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multinational cross-sectional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers, including surgical professionals, experienced psychological burnout and physical harm during the coronavirus 2019 pandemic. This global survey investigated the coronavirus 2019 pandemic impact on psychological and physical health. METHODS: We conducted a global cross-sectional survey between February 18, 2021 and March 13, 2021. The primary outcome was to assess the psychological burnout, fulfillment, and self-reported physical level of harm. A validated Stanford Professional Fulfilment Index score with a self-reported physical level of harm was employed. We used a practical overall composite level of harm score to calculate the level of harm gradient 1-4, combining psychological burnout with self-reported physical level of harm score. RESULTS: A total of 545 participants from 66 countries participated. The final analysis included 520 (95.4%) surgical professionals barring medical students. Most of the participants (81.3%) were professionally unfulfilled. The psychological burnout was evident in 57.7% and was significantly common in those <50 years (P = .002) and those working in the public sector (P = .005). Approximately 41.7% of respondents showed changes in the physical health with self-remedy and no impact on work, whereas 14.9% reported changes to their physical health with <2 weeks off work, and 10.1% reported changes in physical health requiring >2 weeks off work. Severe harm (level of harm 4) was detected in 10.6%, whereas moderate harm (level of harm 3) affected 40.2% of the participants. Low and no harm (level of harm 2 and level of harm 1) represented 27.5% and 21.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that high levels of psychological burnout, professional unfulfillment, work exhaustion, and severe level of harm was more frequent in younger professionals working in the public sector. The findings correlated with a high level of harm in surgical professionals impacting surgical services.

Patients' views and experiences of live supervised tele-exercise classes following bariatric surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: The BARI-LIFESTYLE qualitative study.

The BARI-LIFESTYLE trial is a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of a post-surgery nutritional and behavioural tele-counselling, and supervised exercise programme to maximize the health benefits of bariatric surgery. Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the in-person supervised exercise component had to be converted to remote tele-exercise. However, patients' acceptability of this method of exercise provision is unknown. Between 3 and 6 months following bariatric surgery, 13 adults participated in weekly, structured, 60-min supervised exercise classes delivered via Zoom by a trained exercise therapist. A total of 12 participants (n = 8 female), with a mean age of 46.3 (range 33-63) years, who had undergone either sleeve gastrectomy (n = 8) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 4) surgery, participated in one-to-one semi-structured interviews following the tele-exercise classes. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Participants described how the tele-exercise classes helped them to cope with the changes to their lives brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants found the tele-exercise schedule, content and intensity to be acceptable, and were satisfied with the privacy, security and safety of the technology and classes. Professional supervision and guidance from an exercise therapist were described as central to the tele-exercise provision. Importantly, participation in the tele-exercise provided physical, emotional and social benefits. Few participants reported barriers to participation. Overall, the tele-exercise classes were deemed acceptable and compared favourably to in-person exercise classes.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in acute pancreatitis increases disease severity and 30-day mortality: COVID PAN collaborative study.

OBJECTIVE: There is emerging evidence that the pancreas may be a target organ of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) and coexistent SARS-CoV-2 infection. DESIGN: A prospective international multicentre cohort study including consecutive patients admitted with AP during the current pandemic was undertaken. Primary outcome measure was severity of AP. Secondary outcome measures were aetiology of AP, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of hospital stay, local complications, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), persistent organ failure and 30-day mortality. Multilevel logistic regression was used to compare the two groups. RESULTS: 1777 patients with AP were included during the study period from 1 March to 23 July 2020. 149 patients (8.3%) had concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection. Overall, SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were older male patients and more likely to develop severe AP and ARDS (p<0.001). Unadjusted analysis showed that SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with AP were more likely to require ICU admission (OR 5.21, p<0.001), local complications (OR 2.91, p<0.001), persistent organ failure (OR 7.32, p<0.001), prolonged hospital stay (OR 1.89, p<0.001) and a higher 30-day mortality (OR 6.56, p<0.001). Adjusted analysis showed length of stay (OR 1.32, p<0.001), persistent organ failure (OR 2.77, p<0.003) and 30-day mortality (OR 2.41, p<0.04) were significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2 co-infection. CONCLUSION: Patients with AP and coexistent SARS-CoV-2 infection are at increased risk of severe AP, worse clinical outcomes, prolonged length of hospital stay and high 30-day mortality.