Clearing the air on surgical plume.

BACKGROUND: Surgical smoke or plume is produced by a variety of surgical coagulators and dissectors. A number of jurisdictions have recently introduced policies to reduce the associated occupational health risks including WorkSafe Victoria and New South Wales Health. METHOD: This paper is a narrative review of potential risks, including any associated with COVID-19, and options for mitigation. RESULTS: Surgical smoke or plume contains potentially toxic chemicals, some of which are carcinogens. Plume may also contain live virus, notably Human Papilloma and Hepatitis B, though any possible viral transmission is limited to a few case reports. Despite identifying COVID-19 ribonucleic acid fragments in various body tissues and fluids there are no current reports of COVID-19 transmission. Although plume is rapidly removed from the atmosphere in modern operating rooms, it is still inhaled by the operative team. Mitigation should include ensuring diathermy devices have evacuators while plume extraction should be standard for laparoscopic procedures. Consideration needs to be given to the potential to compromise the operating field of view, or the noise of the extractor impairing communication. There is an increasing range of suitable products on the market. The future includes pendant systems built into the operating room. CONCLUSION: The potential risks associated with surgical plume cannot be ignored. Health services should invest in plume extraction devices with a view to protecting their staff. The conduct of the operation should not be compromised by the devices chosen. Future operating theatres need to be designed to minimize exposure to plume.

Mortality of patients with COVID-19 who undergo an elective or emergency surgical procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There have been several reports that co-infection with the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at the time of surgery increases mortality. The aim of this study was to estimate the effect size of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on post-operative mortality by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was performed. A search was undertaken using electronic bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Library to identify eligible studies published from 1 November 2019 until 21 August 2020. Eligible papers for meta-analysis were those that provided mortality rates following elective and emergency surgery in both COVID-19 positive and negative patients. Forest plots and estimates of odds of death related to having COVID-19 were formed using MedCalc version 9.6 software. Funnel plots to assess for publication bias and heterogeneity were formed in Meta-Essentials. RESULTS: There were 140 records screened for inclusion. Full texts of 39 articles were reviewed, and 36 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. There were eight studies eligible for meta-analysis. There was a total of 193 operations performed on patients with a concurrent COVID-19 infection and 910 performed on patients who were COVID-19 negative. The odds ratio for mortality in patients who underwent a surgical procedure while COVID-19 positive was 7.9 (95% confidence interval: 3.2-19.4). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirms that concurrent COVID-19 infection increases the risk of surgical mortality. The magnitude of this risk mandates that strategies are developed to mitigate the risk at both an individual and system level.

Clinical activity and outcomes during Geelong's general surgery response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has required conserving capacity and resources to avoid the health sector being overwhelmed. This paper describes Geelong's general surgical response, surgical activity, outcomes and the effect on surgical training. METHODS: Data collected from surgical audits; hospital databases and patient's medical records were used to compare the first 7 weeks of our new service delivery (30 March to 17 May 2020) to the corresponding 7 weeks in 2019 (1 April 2019 to 19 May 2019). All surgical cases, morbidity and mortality were discussed at weekly surgical audit meetings conducted by videoconference. Treatment performance indicators were tested by chi-squared test for proportions, and by Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables. RESULTS: Elective general surgery decreased by 45.9% but an essential service was maintained by substantially increasing our public in private operating to perform 81 cases. Despite a 30% decrease in emergency department presentations, general surgery admissions decreased only 6.1% while emergency operations increased 13.9%. We used telehealth to conduct 81.3% of outpatient appointments and 61.8% of pre-operative anaesthetic reviews. No significant differences were found for overall surgical outcomes, including appendicectomy (perforation rates) and laparotomy (length of stay and morbidity). Operative exposure for trainees was maintained. CONCLUSION: Geelong was able to provide a safe and effective general surgery service during the first 7 weeks of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. There are some valuable lessons which could be adopted elsewhere in the event of a surge or second wave of cases.