Perspectives of Gynecologic Oncologists on Minimally Invasive Surgery During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Turkish Society of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Oncology (MIJOD) Survey.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate gynecologic oncologists' trends and attitudes towards the use of Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in active period of the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. METHODS: Online national survey sent to members of Turkish Endoscopy Platform consisting of six sections and 45 questions between the dates 1-15 June 2020 in Turkey to explore their surgical practice during the pandemic in three hospital types: Education and research hospital/university hospital, state hospital and private Hospital. Participants were gynecologic oncologists who are members of Turkish Endoscopy Platform. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of participants canceled all operations except for cancer surgeries and emergent operations. About a quarter of participants (28%) continued to operate laparoscopically and/or robotically. For the evaluation of the suspected adnexial mass (SAM) 64% used laparotomy and only 13 % operated by laparoscopy (L/S). For the management of low-risk early-stage endometrial cancer only fifth of the participants preferred to perform L/S. For endometrial cancer with high-intermediate risk factors more than half of participants preferred complete staging with laparotomy. For advanced stage ovarian cancer, one-fifth of the participants preferred to perform an explorative laparotomy, whilst 15 % preferred diagnostic laparoscopy to triage the patients for either NACT or cytoreductive surgery. On the contrary 41 % of participants chose to have cytology by paracentesis for neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Gynecologic oncologists with >10 years L/S experience used MIS more for SAM. Furthermore, experienced surgeons used L/S more for endometrial cancer patients. In busy COVID hospitals, more participants preferred laparotomy over L/S. CONCLUSION: Use of MIS decreased during the pandemic in Turkey. More experienced surgeons continued to perform MIS. Surgical treatment was the preferred approach for SAM, early-stage endometrial cancer.  However, NACT was more popular compared to radical surgery.

Local adaptation of laparoscopic smoke evacuator in COVID-19 pandemic situation.

The pandemic of COVID-19 has been a game changer in many aspects of medical care, including laparoscopic surgery service. Uncertainty in the early pandemic has led to the fear of doing laparoscopic surgery with regard to the possibility of SARS-COV-2 transmission through surgical smoke. We carried out laparoscopic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic with intention to test our local adaptation of a laparoscopic smoke evacuator. Twenty-five laparoscopic cases for digestive surgery were performed with uneventful results. In summary, a low cost local adaptation of laparoscopic smoke and safe surgical behavior should be the standard of care when delivering laparoscopic surgery service in the pandemic era and forward.

Pain distraction during awake low anterior resection and Cuddle Delivery initiative for inpatient: frugal procedural options to support surgery in the COVID-19 era.

OBJECTIVE: Since minimally invasive surgery and general anesthesia are both aerosol-generating procedures, their use became controversial during the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Moreover, social distancing resulted in serious psychological consequences for inpatients. This case report investigates pain distraction during awake laparotomy, as well as new possibilities for emotional postoperative support to inpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 72-year-old man affected by middle rectal adenocarcinoma underwent lower anterior resection plus total mesorectal excision under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. A 3D mobile theatre (3DMT) was intraoperatively used for pain distraction. A postoperative "Cuddle delivery" service was instituted: video-messages from relatives and close friends were delivered daily to the patient through the 3DMT. Emotional correlations were investigated through a clinical interview by the psychologist of our Hospital. RESULTS: Intraoperative, as well as postoperative pain, resulted well-controlled: visual analogue scale (VAS) ≤3. Conversion to general anesthesia and postoperative intensive support/monitoring were unnecessary. The "Cuddle delivery" initiative positively fed our patient's mood and attitude, strengthening his bond to life. CONCLUSIONS: During pandemic, awake laparotomy under loco-regional anesthesia may be a crucial option in delivering acute care surgery to selected patients when intensive care beds are unavailable. Our procedure introduces potential ways to optimize this approach.

Awake Major Abdominal Surgeries in the COVID-19 Era.

Background: During the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), allocating intensive care beds to patients needing acute care surgery became a very difficult task. Moreover, since general anesthesia is an aerosol-generating procedure, its use became controversial. This strongly restricted therapeutic strategies. Here, we report a series of undeferrable surgical cases treated with awake surgery under neuraxial anesthesia. Contextual benefits of this approach are deepened. Methods: During the first pandemic surge, thirteen patients (5 men and 8 women) with a mean age of 80 years, needing undelayable surgery due to abdominal emergencies, underwent awake open surgery at our Hospital. Prior to surgery, all patients underwent nasopharyngeal swab tests for COVID-19 diagnosis. In all cases, regional anesthesia (spinal, epidural, or combined spinal-epidural anesthesia) was performed. Intraoperative and postoperative pain intensities have been monitored and regularly assessed. A distinct pathway has been set up to keep patients of uncertain COVID-19 diagnosis separated from all other patients. Postoperative course has been examined. Results: The mean operative time was 87 minutes (minimum 60 minutes; maximum 165 minutes). In one case, conversion to general anesthesia was necessary. Postoperative pain was always well controlled. None of them required postoperative intensive care support. No perioperative major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) occurred. Early readmission after surgery never occurred. All nasopharyngeal swabs resulted negative. Conclusions: In our experience, awake laparotomy under regional anesthesia resulted feasible, safe, painless, and, in specific cases, was the only viable option. This approach allowed prevention of the need of postoperative intensive monitoring during the COVID-19 era. In such a peculiar time, we believe it could become part of an ICU-preserving strategy and could limit viral transmission inside theatres.

Laparoscopic vs open surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: what are the risks?

INTRODUCTION: The initial intercollegiate surgical guidance from the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in significant changes to practice. Avoidance of laparoscopy was recommended, to reduce aerosol generation and risk of virus transmission. Evidence on the safety profile of laparoscopy during the pandemic is lacking. This study compares patient outcomes and risk to staff from laparoscopic and open gastrointestinal operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Single-centre retrospective study of gastrointestinal operations performed during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic, comorbidity, perioperative and survival data were collected from electronic medical records and supplemented with patient symptoms reported at telephone follow up. Outcomes assessed were: patient mortality, illness among staff, patient COVID-19 rates, length of hospital stay and postdischarge symptomatology. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients with median age of 56 years were included; 55 (75%) and 18 (25%) underwent laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. All-cause mortality was 5% (4/73), was related to COVID-19 in all cases, with no mortality after laparoscopic surgery. A total of 14 staff members developed COVID-19 symptoms within 2 weeks, with no significant difference between laparoscopic and open surgery (10 vs 4; p=0.331). Median length of stay was shorter in the laparoscopic versus the open group (4.5 vs 9.9 days; p=0.011), and postdischarge symptomatology across 15 symptoms was similar between groups (p=0.135-0.814). CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate protective measures, laparoscopic surgery is safe for patients and staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. The laparoscopic approach maintains an advantage of shorter length of hospital stay compared with open surgery.

The risk of COVID-19 transmission by laparoscopic smoke may be lower than for laparotomy: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical smoke is a well-recognized hazard in the operating room. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical societies quickly published guidelines recommending avoiding laparoscopy or to consider open surgery because of the fear of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through surgical smoke or aerosol. This narrative review of the literature aimed to determine whether there are any differences in the creation of surgical smoke/aerosol between laparoscopy and laparotomy and if laparoscopy may be safer than laparotomy. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the Pubmed, Embase and Google scholar search engines, as well as manual search of the major journals with specific COVID-19 sections for ahead-of-print publications. RESULTS: Of 1098 identified articles, we critically appraised 50. Surgical smoke created by electrosurgical and ultrasonic devices has the same composition both in laparoscopy and laparotomy. SARS-CoV-2 has never been found in surgical smoke and there is currently no data to support its virulence if ever it could be transmitted through surgical smoke/aerosol. CONCLUSION: If laparoscopy is performed in a closed cavity enabling containment of surgical smoke/aerosol, and proper evacuation of smoke with simple measures is respected, and as long as laparoscopy is not contraindicated, we believe that this surgical approach may be safer for the operating team while the patient has the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Evidence-based research in this field is needed for definitive determination of safety.

Bowel perforation in a Covid-19 patient: case report.

INTRODUCTION: Since the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), it became evident that a proportion of patients may present with gastrointestinal symptoms. CASE: We report the case of a Covid-19-infected patient who, during recovery from the pulmonary pneumonia, had gastrointestinal symptoms followed by a diastasic right colon perforation due to acute over distension of the bowel. CONCLUSION: This case highlights the importance of paying attention to initial gastrointestinal symptoms in order to prevent possible complications.