The MIS-COVID-AGICT Study: Trend of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer Treatment During the First Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy. Subgroup Analysis from the COVID-AGICT Study: COVID-19 and Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Treatment.

Background: A preliminary analysis from the COVID-Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Treatment (AGICT) study showed that the rate of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for elective and urgent procedures did not decrease during the pandemic year. In this article, we aimed to perform a subgroup analysis using data from the COVID-AGICT study to evaluate the trend of MIS during the COVID-19 pandemic period in Italy. Methods: This study was conducted collecting data of MIS patients from the COVID-AGICT database. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic scenario reduced MIS for elective treatment of gastrointestinal cancer (GIC) in Italy in 2020. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the impact of the pandemic period on perioperative outcomes in the MIS group. Results: In the pandemic year, 62% of patients underwent surgery with a minimally invasive approach, compared to 63% in 2019 (P = .23). In 2020, the proportion of patients undergoing elective MIS decreased compared to the previous year (80% versus 82%, P = .04), and the rate of urgent MIS did not differ between the 2 years (31% and 33% in 2019 and 2020 - P = .66). Colorectal cancer was less likely to be treated with MIS approach during 2020 (78% versus 75%, P < .001). Conversely, the rate of MIS pancreatic resection was higher in 2020 (28% versus 22%, P < .002). Conversion to an open approach was lower in 2020 (7.2% versus 9.2% - P = .01). Major postoperative complications were similar in both years (11% versus 11%, P = .9). Conclusion: In conclusion, although MIS for elective treatment of GIC in Italy was reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic period, our study revealed that the overall proportion of MIS (elective and urgent) and postoperative outcomes were comparable to the prepandemic period. ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04686747).

Changes to same day discharge after minimally invasive hysterectomy throughout COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive hysterectomy is a common gynecologic procedure. Numerous studies have found that a same day discharge (SDD) is safe following this procedure. Research has found that SDDs decrease resource strain, nosocomial infections, and financial burden for both the patient and healthcare system. Due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the safety of hospital admissions and elective surgeries was called into question. OBJECTIVE: To assess the rates of SDD among patients who underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective chart review was performed from September 2018 to December 2020 on 521 patients, who met inclusion criteria. Descriptive analysis, chi-square tests of association, and multivariable logistic regression were used for analysis. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between rate of SDDs pre-COVID-19 (12.5%) versus during the COVID-19 period (28.6%) (p < 0.001). Surgical complexity was predictive of not being discharged the same day of surgery (odds ratio [OR] = 4.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.2-8.8), as was surgical completion time after 4 p.m. (OR = 5.2, 95% CI = 1.1-25.2). There was no difference in readmissions (p = 0.209) and emergency department (ED) visits (p = 0.973) between SDD and overnight stay. CONCLUSION: Rates of SDD for patients undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy were significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. SDDs are safe; the number of readmissions and ED visits did not increase among patients who were discharged on the same day.

Comparative effectiveness of telesimulation versus standard simulation for pediatric Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) essential skills training.

BACKGROUND: Proctored on site simulation-based surgical education has been integrated in our residents curricula since 2012. Due to COVID-19 pandemic and social distance protocols, we developed a Tele-assisted Essential Skills Training Module (T-ESTM). The aim of this study is to evaluate comparative effectiveness between Telesimulation (T) versus Standard Simulation (S) for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) essential skills training. METHODS: ESTM includes academic lectures, tutorials for ergonomics and 7 hands-on tasks scheduled into 2 sessions of 3 hours. Initial and final assessment scoring (adapted from GOALS) as well as timing for 3 of the tasks were registered. Telesimulation (T) group accessed the content online and completed their Hands-On practice through a digital communication platform. Standard Simulation (S) group attended conferences and Hands-On practice at the simulation center. Both groups were proctored by the same educators with summative and formative feedback and debriefing. Data was analyzed with the R-studio software program. RESULTS: Each group had 20 participants with a mean age of 28 ± 5 years. 67.5% were surgeons in training, 47.5% had performed low complexity procedures and 40% had previous experience with simulation training. We observed a significant improvement in scoring and time reduction for all assessed tasks in S and T groups (p < 0.001), with no statistically significant differences when comparing both groups. Similar performance could be achieved with both strategies. CONCLUSION: Telesimulation is a reproducible and effective educational tool for remote MIS essential skills training, and should be considered as an alternative to on-site simulation programs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II. TYPE OF STUDY: Clinical Research.

Safety and Feasibility of Telehealth Only Preoperative Evaluation Before Minimally Invasive Robotic Urologic Surgery.

Purpose: Telehealth utilization has increased dramatically over the past few years due to improvement in technology and the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, no study has examined whether a telehealth visit alone for preoperative evaluation is safe and sufficient before surgery. We examined the safety and feasibility of preoperative telehealth visits alone before minimally invasive urologic surgery. Materials and Methods: Single institution retrospective review of robotic prostate, kidney, and cystectomy procedures between April and December 2020. Cases were dichotomized into those who underwent preoperative evaluation by telehealth only vs traditional in-person visits. Outcomes included complications, blood loss, conversion to open surgery rates, and operative times. We assessed efficiency of care by measuring time from preoperative visit to surgery. Results: Three hundred fourteen patients were included in the study, with 14% of cases (n = 45) being performed after a preoperative telehealth visit. The majority of cases included in analysis were robotic surgeries of the prostate (56.1% of all cases, n = 176) and the kidney (35.0% of all cases, n = 110). Patients seen via telehealth alone preoperatively had no significant differences in any grade of complications, perioperative outcomes, blood loss, operative time, and length of stay. There was no difference in change in anticipated procedure between the groups, and there was no case of conversion to open surgery in the telehealth only group. Time from preoperative visit to surgery was significantly shorter for the telehealth group by 13 days. Conclusions: Our study is the first to analyze the safety of telehealth only preoperative visits before minimally invasive urologic surgery. We found no difference in perioperative outcomes including conversion to open surgery or change in planned procedure. Furthermore, telehealth preoperative visits appeared to facilitate shorter time to surgery. This study has important implications for expediting patient care and medicolegal considerations.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Tertiary Medical Facility in Japan.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has reduced hospital visits due to concerns regarding infection and also resulted in cancer screening delays. These changes may have had an impact on the progression of colorectal cancer (CRC). Therefore, the present study investigated the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for CRC using a correlation analysis of clinical outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The present study targeted CRC patients who underwent MIS between January 2018 and December 2019 (pre-COVID-19) and between April 2020 and March 2021 (COVID-19). A comparison analysis of clinical, surgical, and pathological findings between the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 groups was performed. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients underwent MIS for CRC pre-COVID-19 and 67 during COVID-19. The number of CRC cases detected by fecal occult blood tests was slightly higher in the pre-COVID-19 group than that in the COVID-19 group. Re-evaluations of laparoscopic videos revealed that the number of cases of surgical T4 CRC resected with the combined resection of the adjacent organs was significantly higher in the COVID-19 group than that in the pre-COVID-19 group (16.4 vs. 4.4%, p=0.010). Furthermore, surgical times were significantly longer in the COVID-19 group than those in the pre-COVID-19 group (p<0.001). Pathological findings showed that the number of pT4 cases was significantly higher in the COVID-19 group than that in the pre-COVID-19 group (p=0.026). CONCLUSION: The number of T4 CRC cases was higher during than before the COVID-19 pandemic, with increases in the surgical difficulty of MIS.

Ambulatory colectomy: A pilot protocol for same day discharge in minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Since its inception colectomy has routinely been performed in the inpatient setting. The advent of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols has led improved outcomes, including decreased length of stay (LOS). These improvements have introduced the possibility of ambulatory colectomy. However, indications, protocols, and limitations of ambulatory colectomy have not been extensively explored. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review on ambulatory colectomies performed between February 2019 and August 2021. Patients were candidates for same day discharge (SDD) if they met rigorous preoperative criteria. Following an uncomplicated operation, strict postoperative parameters were required for safe discharge. If the patient underwent SDD following their operation, they were monitored closely via telehealth visits and/or patient communication messages until their one-week postoperative visit. RESULTS: From our review, we identified sixty-nine (n = 69) patients who underwent SDD after colectomy. Of the 69, only one patient was readmitted after discharge (1.4%). All procedures were performed via a robotic-assisted approach (Da Vinci Xi). None of the patients underwent conversion to an open procedure. The most frequently performed procedures included: low anterior resection (LAR) (n = 32, 46.4%) and right hemicolectomy (n = 11, 15.9%). CONCLUSION: Through proper patient education and strictly defined communication between the patient care teams, safe and effective care in the setting of SDD after colectomy can be provided. With recent technological advancements, enhanced mechanisms for patient education throughout all phases, and emerging means of patient-physician communication, via the data included herein the opportunity for same day discharge (SDD) after colectomy is a feasible and safe management plan in the proper patient.

Reduced Opioid Use and Prescribing in a Same Day Discharge Pilot Enhanced Recovery Program for Elective Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgical Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) are associated with reduced complications and length of stay. The validation of the I-FEED scoring system, advances in perioperative anesthesia, multimodal analgesia, and telehealth remote monitoring have resulted in further evolution of ERPs setting the stage for same day discharge (SDD). Pioneers and early adopters have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of SDD programs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of a pilot SDD ERP on patient self-reported pain scoring and narcotic usage. METHODS: A quality improvement pilot program was conducted to assess the impact of a SDD ERP on post-operative pain score reporting and opioid use in healthy patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery as an alternative to post-operative hospitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic (May 2020-December 2021). Patients were monitored remotely with daily telephone visits on POD 1-7 assessing the following variables: I-FEED score, pain score, pain management, bowel function, dietary advancement, any complications, and/or re-admissions. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients met the highly selective eligibility criteria for "healthy patient, healthy anastomosis." SDD occurred in 70%. The remaining 30% were discharged on POD 1. Mean total narcotic usage was 5.2 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone despite relatively high reported pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: In our initial experience, SDD is associated with significantly lower patient narcotic utilization for postoperative pain management than hypothesized. This pilot SDD program resulted in a change in clinical practice with reduction of prescribed discharge oxycodone 5 mg quantity from #40 to #10 tablets.

Patient Characteristics Associated with Access to Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery: Changes during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient characteristics that affect access to minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) subspecialty care and identify changes during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of patients referred to MIGS from 2014 to 2016 (historic cohort) compared with those referred to MIGS in 2020 (pandemic cohort). Primary outcome was the interval between referral and first appointment. SETTING: Single-institution academic MIGS division. PATIENTS: Historic cohort (n = 1082) and pandemic cohort (n = 770). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographics and socioeconomic variables (race, ethnicity, language, insurance, employment, and socioeconomic factors by census tract) and distance from hospital were compared between historic and pandemic cohorts with respect to referral interval using the chi-square, Fisher exact tests, and logistic regression. After adjusting for referral indication, being unemployed and living in an area with less population density, less education, and higher percentage of poverty were associated with a referral interval >30 days in the historic cohort. In the pandemic cohort, only unemployment persisted as a covariate associated with prolonged referral interval and new associated variables were primary language other than English (odds ratio, 3.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60-6.40) and "other" race (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.34-3.68). The odds of waiting >30 days increased by 6% with the addition of 1 demographic risk factor (95% CI, 1.01-1.10) and by 17% for 3 risk factors (95% CI, 1.03-1.34) in the historic cohort whereas no significant intersectionality was identified in the pandemic cohort. Average referral intervals were significantly shorter during the pandemic (31 vs 50 days, p <.01). Telemedicine appointments had a significantly shorter referral interval than in-person appointments (27 vs 47 days, p <.01). Of patients using telemedicine, a greater proportion were non-Hispanic, English speaking, employed, privately insured, and lived further from the hospital (p <.05). CONCLUSION: Time from referral to first appointment at a tertiary-care MIGS practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was shorter than that before the pandemic, likely owing to the adoption of telemedicine. Differences in socioeconomic and demographic factors suggest that telemedicine improved access to care and decreased access disparities for many populations, but not for non-English-speaking patients.

Maintaining a minimally invasive surgical service during a pandemic.

PURPOSE: The safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was questioned in the COVID-19 pandemic due to concern regarding disease spread. We continued MIS during the pandemic with appropriate protective measures. This study aims to assess the safety of MIS compared to Open Surgery (OS) in this setting. METHODS: Operations performed during 2020 lockdown were compared with operations from the same time-period in 2019 and 2021. Outcomes reviewed included all complications, respiratory complications, length of stay (LOS) and operating surgeon COVID-19 infections (OSI). RESULTS: In 2020, MIS comprised 52% of procedures. 29% of MIS 2020 had complications (2019: 24%, 2021: 15%; p = 0.08) vs 47% in OS 2020 (p = 0.04 vs MIS). 8.5% of MIS 2020 had respiratory complications (2019: 7.7%, 2021: 6.9%; p = 0.9) vs 10.5% in OS 2020 (p = 0.8 vs MIS). Median LOS[IQR] for MIS 2020 was 2.5[6] days vs 5[23] days in OS 2020 (p = 0.06). In 2020, 2 patients (1.2%) were COVID-19 positive (MIS: 1, OS: 1) and there were no OSI. CONCLUSION: Despite extensive use of MIS during the pandemic, there was no associated increase in respiratory or other complications, and no OSI. Our study suggests that, with appropriate protective measures, MIS can be performed safely despite high levels of COVID-19 in the population.

The impact of EAES Fellowship Programme: a five-year review and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) fellowship programme was established in 2014, allowing nine surgeons annually to obtain experience and skills in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) from specialist centres across the Europe and United States. It aligns with the strategic focus of EAES Education and Training Committee on enabling Learning Mobility opportunities. To assess the impact of the programme, a survey was conducted aiming to evaluate the experience and impact of the programme and receive feedback for improvements. METHODS: A survey using a 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate clinical, education and research experience. The impact on acquisition of new technical skills, change in clinical practice and ongoing collaboration with the host institute was assessed. The fellows selected between 2014 and 2018 were included. Ratings were analysed in percentage; thematic analysis was applied to the free-text feedbacks using qualitative analysis. RESULTS: All the fellows had good access to observing in operating theatres and 70.6% were able to assist. 91.2% participated in educational activities and 23.5% were able to contribute through teaching. 44.1% participated in research activities and 41.2% became an author/co-author of a publication from the host. 97.1% of fellows stated that their operative competency had increased, 94.3% gained new surgical skills and 85.7% was able to introduce new techniques in their hospitals. 74.29% agreed that the clinical experience led to a change in their practices. The most commonly suggested improvements were setting realistic target in clinical and research areas, increasing fellowship duration, and maximising theatre assisting opportunities. Nevertheless, 100% of fellows would recommend the fellowship to their peers. CONCLUSION: EAES fellowship programme has shown a positive impact on acquiring and adopting new MIS techniques. To further refine the programme, an individualised approach should be adopted to set achievable learning objectives in clinical skills, education and research.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 Testing of Aerosols Emitted During Pediatric Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Prospective, Case-Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has presented significant safety concerns for healthcare providers, especially those performing aerosol-generating procedures. Several surgical societies issued early warnings that aerosols generated during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) could harbor infectious quantities of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This study tested the hypothesis that MIS-aerosols contain SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: To evaluate SARS-CoV-2 presence in aerosols emitted during intracavitary MIS, children <18 years who required emergent MIS and were discovered to be SARS-CoV-2-positive were enrolled. Swabs were obtained from the port in-line with a filtered smoke evacuation system, the tubing adjacent to this port, the fluid collection chamber and filter, and the distal endotracheal tube (ETT). All swabs were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 using quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. To evaluate viral distribution in tissues, fluorescence in situ hybridization for SARS-CoV-2 was performed on resected specimens. Outcomes were recorded, and participating healthcare workers were tracked for SARS-CoV-2 conversion. RESULTS: From July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, 11 children requiring emergent MIS were discovered preoperatively to be SARS-CoV-2 positive (median age: 14 years [5-17]). SARS-CoV-2 was detected only in ETT swabs and not in surgical aerosols or specimens. Median operative time was 56.5 minutes (IQR: 46-66), and postoperative stay was 21.2 hours (IQR: 1.97-57.57). No complications or viral eruption were recorded, and none of 63 healthcare workers tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 6 weeks. DISCUSSION: SARS-CoV-2 was detected only in ETT secretions and not in surgical aerosols or specimens among a pediatric cohort of asymptomatic patients having emergent MIS.

Effectiveness of telesimulation for pediatric minimally invasive surgery essential skills training.

BACKGROUND: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing rules, access to in-person training activities had temporarily been interrupted, speeding up the implementation of telesimulation for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) essential skills training (T-ESTM, Telesimulation - Essential Skills Training Module) in our center. The aim of this study was to explore the effectiveness of T-ESTM. METHODS: T-ESTM was scheduled into 2 sessions of 3 h through the Zoom® virtual meeting platform. The academic lectures, the tutorials for box-trainer set-up and 7 performance tasks were accessed through an online campus previous to the remote encounter for personalized guidance and debriefing. Initial (pre-telementoring) and final (post 6-hour telementoring) assessment scoring as well as timing for Task 2 (circle-cutting pattern), 3 (extracorporeal Roeder knot) and 5 (intracorporeal Square knot) were registered. RESULTS: 61 participants were recruited. The mean age was 31±5 years. 65% were surgical residents. 48% performed low complexity procedures. 52% had previous experience with simulation training. In Task 2, there was a 21% improvement in the final score obtained, as well as a significant decrease in time of 33%; in Task 3, there was an increase of 39% in the scoring and a decrease of 49% in the timing; and in Task 5, participants improved their technique a 30% and decreased the performance time a 47%. All the differences were statistically significant. DISCUSSION: Our data support T-ESTM as a reproducible and effective educational tool for remote MIS essential skills hands-on training. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Clinical outcomes of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in minimally invasive urological surgery.

The adoption of minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques has revolutionised urological practice. This necessitates a pneumoperitoneum (PNP) and the impact the PNP pressure has on post-operative outcomes is uncertain. During the current COVID-19 era guidance has suggested the utilisation of lower PNP pressures to mitigate the risk of intra-operative viral transmission. Review the current literature regarding the impact of pneumoperitoneum pressure, within the field of urology, on post-operative outcomes. A search of the PubMed, Medline and EMBASE databases was undertaken to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines were adhered to. Ten studies, that included both randomised controlled trials and retrospective case series reviews, were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The effect of PNP pressure on outcomes following prostatectomy, live donor nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy and a variety of benign upper tract procedures were discussed. Low pressure PNP appears safe when compared to high pressure PNP, potentially reducing post-operative pain and rates of ileus. When compared to general surgery, there is a lack of quality evidence investigating the impact of PNP pressures on outcomes within urology. Low pressure PNP appears non-inferior to high pressure PNP. More research is required to validate this finding, particularly post-cystectomy and nephrectomy.

Spine surgery under awake spinal anesthesia: an Egyptian experience during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Despite tremendous advancements in biomedical science and surgical technique, spine surgeries are still associated with considerable rates of morbidity and mortality, particularly in the elderly. Multiple novel techniques have been employed in recent years to adequately treat spinal diseases while mitigating the perioperative morbidity associated with traditional spinal surgery. Some of these techniques include minimally invasive methods and novel anesthetic and analgesic methods. In recent years, awake spine surgery with spinal anesthesia has gained attention as an alternative to general anesthesia (GA). In this study, the authors retrospectively reviewed a single-institution Egyptian experience with awake spine surgery using spinal anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Overall, 149 patients who were admitted to As-Salam International Hospital in Cairo for lumbar and lower thoracic spine surgeries, between 2019 and 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics and comorbidities were collected and analyzed. Visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were assessed at different time intervals including preoperatively, immediately after surgery, and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was queried through a questionnaire assessing patient preference for traditional anesthesia or spinal anesthesia. RESULTS: Of the 149 patients who successfully received spine surgery with spinal anesthesia, there were 49 males and 100 females. The cohort age ranged from 22 to 85 years with a mean of 47.5 years. The operative time ranged from 45 to 300 minutes with a mean estimated blood loss (EBL) of 385 ± 156 mL. No major cardiopulmonary or intraoperative complications occurred, and patients were able to eat immediately after surgery. Patients were able to ambulate without an assistive device 6 to 8 hours after surgery. Decompression and fusion patients were discharged on postoperative days 2 and 3, respectively. VAS and ODI scores demonstrated excellent pain relief, which was maintained at the 1-year postoperative follow-up. No 30- or 90-day readmissions were recorded. Of 149 patients, 124 were satisfied with spinal anesthesia and would recommend spinal anesthesia to other patients. The remaining patients were not satisfied with spinal anesthesia but reported being pleased with their postoperative clinical and functional outcomes. One patient was converted to GA due to the duration of the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received spinal anesthesia for awake spine surgery experienced short stays in the hospital, no readmissions, patient satisfaction, and well-controlled pain. The results of this study have validated the growing body of literature that demonstrates that awake spine surgery with spinal anesthesia is safe and associated with superior outcomes compared with traditional GA. Additionally, the ability to address chronic debilitating conditions, such as spinal conditions, with minimal use of valuable resources, such as ventilators, proved useful during the COVID-19 pandemic and could be a model should other stressors on healthcare systems arise, especially in developing areas of the world.

Moving forward with elective vascular work: a reflection on the impact of COVID-19 on a regional vascular hub.

INTRODUCTION: Following the initial COVID-19 surge in the UK, there was a national incentive for elective vascular surgery to be restricted to 'clean' sites to reduce perioperative cross-infection and subsequent mortality. We assessed the risk of dying from perioperatively acquired COVID-19 during the peak of the London outbreak. METHODS: Forty-three consecutive patients who had vascular (n=48) procedures in March and April 2020 at a regional hub serving five London hospitals were analysed. The patients were screened for COVID-19 in the 30-day postoperative period and the main outcome measure was mortality from COVID-19. A comparison was then made with patients who underwent minimally invasive procedures in our integrated interventional radiology department. Median follow-up was 41 days (interquartile range 8-58) overall. RESULTS: Three patients (7%) in the vascular group (median age 61 years, all diabetic, two male) died from COVID-19, all of whom tested positive postoperatively. Two others became positive but recovered. In comparison, two patients (2%) in the interventional radiology group died from COVID-19; however, one was positive prior to their procedure. CONCLUSION: Only urgent vascular cases should be performed during a COVID-19 surge. However, with growing waiting lists for elective surgery following the pandemic's second wave, further restrictions may not be a viable long-term solution. When prevalence of the disease is lower and if resources allow, resumption of care at 'hot' sites should be considered, if safety measures can be implemented. The advantages of minimally invasive surgery may also reduce risk.