ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed patient management in all sectors. All patients need to be examined for COVID-19, including in digestive surgery emergency cases. In this paper, we report four digestive surgery emergency cases with clinical and radiological findings similar to COVID-19. CASE PRESENTATION: We report four digestive surgery emergency cases admitted with fever and cough symptoms. Case 1 is a 75-year-old male with gastric perforation and pneumonia, case 2 is a 32-year-old female with intestinal and pulmonal tuberculosis, case 3 is a 30-year-old female with acute pancreatitis with pleuritis and pleural effusion, and the last case is a 56-year-old female with rectosigmoid cancer with pulmonal metastases. All the patients underwent emergency laparotomy, were hospitalized for therapy, and discharged from the hospital. After 1-month follow-up after surgery, 1 patient had no complaints, 2 patients had surgical site infection, and 1 patient died because of ARDS due to lung metastases. DISCUSSION: For all four cases, the surgeries were done with strict COVID-19 protocol which included patient screening, examination, laboratory assessment, rapid test screening, and RT-PCR testing. There were no intrahospital mortalities and all the patients were discharged from the hospital. Three patients were followed-up and recovered well with 2 patients having surgical site infection which recovered within a week. However, 1 patient did not show up for the scheduled follow-up and was reported dead 2 weeks after surgery because of ARDS due to lung metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency surgery, especially digestive surgery cases, can be done in the COVID-19 pandemic era with strict prior screening and examination, and safety protocol.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: It is reported that surgical procedures performed during the COVID-19 pandemic are accompanied by high complications and risks. In this study, the urological interventions applied with appropriate infrastructure and protocols during the pandemic in the pandemic hospital that is carrying out the COVID-19 struggle are analyzed. METHODS: Urological interventions were reviewed in the 5-week period between March 11 and April 16. The distribution of outpatient and interventional procedures was determined by weeks concurrently along with the COVID-19 patient workload, and data in the country, subgroups were further analyzed. Patients intervened were divided into four groups as Emergency, High, Intermediate, and Low Priority cases according to the EAU recommendations. The COVID-19-related findings were recorded; staff and patient effects were reported. RESULTS: Of the 160 interventions, 65 were minimally invasive or open surgical intervention, 95 were non-surgical outpatient intervention, and the outpatient admission was 777. According to the priority level, 33 cases had emergency and high priority, 32 intermediate and low priority. COVID-19 quarantine and follow-up were performed at least 1 week in 22 (33.8%) operated patients at the last week, 43 (66.2%) patients who were operated in the previous 4 weeks followed up at least 2 weeks. No postoperative complications were encountered in any patient due to COVID-19 during the postoperative period. CONCLUSION: In the COVID-19 pandemic, precautions, isolation, and algorithms are required to avoid disruption in the intervention and follow-up of urology patients; priority urological interventions should not be disrupted in the presence of necessary experience and infrastructure.