Turnover Time Between Elective Operative Cases: Does the Witching Hour Exist for the Operating Room?

BACKGROUND: Efficient resource management in the operating room (OR) contributes significantly to healthcare expenditure and revenue generation for health systems. We aim to assess the influence that surgeon, anesthesiology, and nursing team assignments and time of day have on turnover time (TOT) in the OR. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of elective cases at a single academic hospital that were completed between Monday and Friday between the hours of 0700 and 2359 from July 1, 2017, through March 31, 2018. Emergent cases and unplanned, add-on cases were excluded. Data regarding patient characteristics, OR teams, TOT, and procedure start and end times were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2174 total cases across 13 different specialties were included in our study. A multivariate regression of relevant variables affecting TOT was performed. Consecutive specialty (p < 0.0001), consecutive surgeon (p < 0.0001), anesthesiologist (p < 0.0001), and prior case ending before 1400 (p < 0.0001) were independent predictors of lower TOT. A receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.848 and a cutoff of 1400 having the highest sensitivity and specificity for TOT difference. CONCLUSIONS: TOT can be significantly affected by the time of the day the procedure is performed. Staffing availability during late procedures and the differences in how OR team staff are scheduled may affect OR efficiency. Additional studies may be needed to determine the long-term implications of changes implemented to decrease organizational operational costs related to the OR.

Recovering from COVID - Improving operating room capacity.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 pandemic required that health systems made great efforts to mitigate the impact of high demands of patients requiring treatment. Triaging surgical cases reduced operating room capacity. Immunizations, massive testing, and personal protective equipment enabled re-activation of operating rooms. Delayed and newly added cases has placed stress on the system. We hypothesize that standardization in practice for tasks performed between anesthesia ready and surgery start time, also known as "prepping time", can reduce operative time, improve efficiency and increase capacity. The aim of our project was to create and implement a best practice standardized prepping protocol, to explore its impact on operating room capacity. METHODS: Once local policies allowed re-opening of the operating rooms, our multidisciplinary group developed a working plan following Adaptive Clinical Management (ACM) principles to optimize surgical prepping time. Using electronic medical record (EMR) data, surgeons with the lowest surgical prepping times were identified (positive deviants). Their surgical prepping time workflows were reviewed. A clinical standard work (CSW) protocol was created by the team leader. New CSW protocol was defined and implemented by the leader and then by the rest of the surgeons. Baseline data was automatically extracted from EMR and analyzed by statistical process control (SPC) charts using AdaptX. Balancing measures included "last case end time" and rates of surgical site infections. RESULTS: A total of 2506 patients were included for analysis with 1333 prior to intervention and 1173 after. Team leader implementated the new CSW prepping protocol showing a special cause variation with an average time improvement from 14.6 min to 11.6 min and for all surgeons from 13.8 to 12.0 min. Total cases per month increased from 70 to 90 cases per month. Baseline 'Last Case End Time' was 15.7 min later than the scheduled. New CSW improve end time with an average of 20.8 min before the schedule. Baseline surgical site infection was 0.1% for the study population. No difference was seen after implementation. DISCUSSION: Variations in performance can be quantified using funnel plots showing individual practices allowing best practice to be identified, tested and scaled. Implementation of our surgical prepping time protocol showed a sustainable increase in efficiency without affecting quality, safety or workload. This additional increase is estimated to represent approximately $2-2.5M additional revenue per year. CONCLUSION: Adaptive clinical management is a practical solution to increase OR capacity by improving efficiency to reduce extra burden presented during COVID19 pandemic.

Personal Protective Equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic and operative time in cesarean section: retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The covid-19 pandemic has meant a change in working protocols, as well as in Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Obstetricians have had to adapt quickly to these changes without knowing how they affected their clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to evaluate how COVID-19 pandemic and PPE can affect operative time, operating room time, transfer into the operating room to delivery time and skin incision to delivery time in cesarean section. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study. Women with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection having a cesarean section after March 7th, 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic were included in the study. For each woman with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, a woman who had a cesarean section for the same indication during the COVID-19 pandemic and with similar clinical history but not affected by SARS-CoV-2 was included. RESULTS: 42 cesarean sections were studied. The operating room time was longer in the COVID-19 confirmed or suspected women: 90 (73.0 to 110.0) versus 61 (48.0 to 70.5) minutes; p < .001. The transfer into the operating room to delivery time was longer, but not statistically significant, in urgent cesarean sections in COVID-19 confirmed or suspected women: 25.5 (17.5 to 31.75) versus 18.0 (10.0 to 26.25) minutes; p = .113. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the operative time, transfer into the operating room to delivery time and skin incision to delivery time when wearing PPE in cesarean section. The COVID-19 pandemic and the use of PPE resulted in a significant increase in operating room time.

Comparative early results of a robotics-assisted endoscope holder in single port thoracoscopic surgery in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in surgical instruments have made single-port surgery more widely accepted and lead to a reduced demand for surgical assistants. As COVID-19 has ravaged the world, maintaining minimum medical staffing requirements and proper social distancing have become major topics of interest. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of applying the unisurgeon approach in single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery aided by a robotic camera holder. METHODS: Operative time, blood loss, setup time, postoperative hospital stays, and the number of participating surgeons in single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic lung resections were gathered for investigation after the introduction of the ENDOFIXexo robotic endoscope holder system. In this cohort, we collected 213 patients who underwent single port video thoracoscope surgery, including 57 patients underwent robotic endoscope arm assisted surgery and case-matched 52 patients in the robotic arm-assisted group with patients in the human-assisted group through propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: In wedge resection, a single surgeon was able to completely operate on all lobes of target lesions. However, for anatomical resections, namely segmentectomy, the success rate was 95%, and for lobectomy, the success rate was only 64%. No significant differences between setup times, blood loss, or operative times between the two groups were observed. CONCLUSIONS: When an experienced uniport surgeon is assisted by a robotic endoscope holder, wedge resection is the most suitable procedure to be performed through unisurgeon single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery without increasing setup time, operative time, or short-term complications. Verification of the technique's applicability for use in anatomic resections requires further investigation.

Haemostatic devices in parotid surgery: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The Harmonic Scalpel and Ligasure (Covidien) devices are commonly used in head and neck surgery. Parotidectomy is a complex and intricate surgery that requires careful dissection of the facial nerve. This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes in parotidectomy using these haemostatic devices with traditional scalpel and cautery. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was performed with subsequent meta-analysis of seven studies that compared the use of haemostatic devices to traditional scalpel and cautery in parotidectomy. Outcome measures included: temporary facial paresis, operating time, intra-operative blood loss, post-operative drain output and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies representing 675 patients were identified: 372 patients were treated with haemostatic devices, and 303 patients were treated with scalpel and cautery. Statistically significant outcomes favouring the use of haemostatic devices included operating time, intra-operative blood loss and post-operative drain output. Outcome measures that did not favour either treatment included facial nerve paresis and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Overall, haemostatic devices were found to reduce operating time, intra-operative blood loss and post-operative drain output.

Laparoscopic repair of giant Morgagni hernia by direct suturing with V-Loc.

BACKGROUND: Morgagni hernias present technical challenges. The laparoscopic approach for repair was first described in 1992; however, as these hernias are uncommon in adult life, few data exist on the optimal method for surgical management. The purpose of this study was to analyze a method for laparoscopic repair of Morgagni giant hernias using laparoscopic primary closure with V lock (Medtronic, Covidien). METHODS: This case series describes a method of laparoscopic Morgagni hernia repair using primary closure. In all patients, a laparoscopic transabdominal approach was used. The content of the hernia was reduced into the abdomen, and the diaphragmatic defect was closed with a running laparoscopic suture using a self-fixating suture. Clips were placed at the edges of the suture to secure the pledged sutures to both the anterior and posterior fascia. Demographic data such as BMI and operative and postoperative data were collected. RESULTS: Retrospectively collected data for 9 patients were analyzed. There were 1 (11.1%) males and 8 (88.8%) females. The median BMI was 29.14±52 kg/m². The median operative time was 80±25 minutes. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions to open surgery. Patients began a fluid diet on the first postoperative day and were discharged after a median hospital stay of 3±1.87 days. In a median follow-up of 36 months, we did not observe any recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: Transabdominal laparoscopic approach with primary closure of the diaphragmatic defect is a viable approach for the repair of Morgagni hernia. In our experience, the use of laparoscopic transabdominal suture fixed to the fascia allowed the closure of the defect laparoscopically with minimal tension on the repairs.

Efficacy of the slow firing method using a reinforced triple-row stapler for preventing postoperative pancreatic fistula during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

PURPOSE: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most clinically relevant complication of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). The present study evaluated the efficacy of the "slow firing method" using a reinforced triple-row stapler (Covidien, Tokyo, Japan) during LDP. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included 73 consecutive patients who underwent LDP using the slow firing method. A black cartridge was used in all patients. The primary endpoint was the rate of clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) after LDP. Secondary endpoints included perioperative outcomes and factors associated with CR-POPF as well as the correlation between the transection time and thickness of the pancreas. RESULTS: Four patients (5.5%) developed CR-POPF (grade B). Overall morbidity rates, defined as grade ≥ II and ≥ III according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, were 21 and 11%, respectively. The median postoperative hospital stay was 10 days. Preoperative diabetes (13.6 vs. 0.2%, P = 0.044) and thickness of the pancreas ≥ 15 mm (13.8% vs. 0%, P = 0.006) were identified as independent risk factors for CR-POPF. The median transection time was 16 (8-29) min. CONCLUSION: The slow firing method using a reinforced triple-row stapler for pancreatic transection is simple, safe, and effective for preventing CR-POPF after LDP.

Evaluating resident involvement and the 'July effect' in parotidectomy.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of resident involvement and the 'July effect' on peri-operative complications after parotidectomy. METHOD: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for parotidectomy procedures with resident involvement between 2005 and 2014. RESULTS: There were 11 733 cases were identified, of which 932 involved resident participation (7.9 per cent). Resident involvement resulted in a significantly lower reoperation rate (adjusted odds ratio, 0.18; 95 per cent confidence interval, 0.05-0.73; p = 0.02) and readmission rate (adjusted odds ratios 0.30; 95 per cent confidence interval, 0.11-0.80; p = 0.02). However, resident involvement was associated with a mean 24 minutes longer adjusted operative time and 23.5 per cent longer adjusted total hospital length of stay (respective p < 0.01). No significant difference in surgical or medical complication rates or mortality was found when comparing cases among academic quarters. CONCLUSION: Resident participation is associated with significantly decreased reoperation and readmission rates as well as longer mean operative times and total length of stay. Resident transitions during July are not associated with increased risk of adverse peri-operative outcomes after parotidectomy.

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.

Negative-Pressure Isolation Mask for Endoscopic Examination During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, endoscopists have high risks of exposure to exhaled air from patients during gastroscopy. To minimize this risk, we transformed the oxygen mask into a fully closed negative-pressure gastroscope isolation mask. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and feasibility of use of this mask during gastroscopy. METHODS: From February 28, 2020, to March 10, 2020, 320 patients undergoing gastroscopy were randomly assigned into the mask group (n = 160) or conventional group (n = 160). Patients in the mask group wore the isolation mask during gastroscopy, whereas patients in the conventional group did not wear the mask. The adenosine triphosphate fluorescence and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in patients' exhaled air were measured to reflect the degree of environmental pollution by exhaled air. Patients' vital signs, operation time, and adverse events during endoscopy were also evaluated. RESULTS: Four patients were excluded because of noncooperation or incomplete data. A total of 316 patients were included in the final analysis. The difference between the highest CO2 concentration around patients' mouth and CO2 concentration in the environment was significantly decreased in the mask group compared with the conventional group. There was no significant difference in the adenosine triphosphate fluorescence, vital signs, and operation time between the 2 groups. No severe adverse events related to the isolation mask, endoscopy failure, or new coronavirus infection during follow-up were recorded. DISCUSSION: This new isolation mask showed excellent feasibility of use and safety compared with routine gastroscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Minimal invasive surgery for left colectomy adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic: laparoscopic intracorporeal resection and anastomosis, a 'don't touch the bowel' technique.

AIM: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced surgeons to adapt their standard procedures. The modifications introduced are designed to favour minimally invasive surgery. The positive results obtained with intracorporeal resection and anastomosis in the right colon and rectum prompt us to adapt these procedures to the left colon. We describe a 'don't touch the bowel' technique and outline the benefits to patients of the use of less surgically aggressive techniques and also to surgeons in terms of the lower emission of aerosols that might transmit the COVID-19 infection. METHODS: This was an observational study of intracorporeal resection and anastomosis in left colectomy. We describe the technical details of intracorporeal resection, end-to-end stapled anastomosis and extraction of the specimen through mini-laparotomy in the ideal location. RESULTS: We present preliminary results of 17 patients with left-sided colonic pathologies, 15 neoplasia and two diverticular disease, who underwent four left hemicolectomies, six sigmoidectomies and seven high anterior resections. Median operating time was 186 min (range 120-280). No patient required conversion to extracorporeal laparoscopy or open surgery. Median hospital stay was 4.7 days (range 3-12 days). There was one case of anastomotic leak managed with conservative treatment. CONCLUSION: Intracorporeal resection and end-to-end anastomosis with the possibility of extraction of the specimen by a mini-laparotomy in the ideal location may present benefits and also adapts well to the conditions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Future comparative studies are needed to demonstrate these benefits with respect to extracorporeal anastomosis.

Thoracic Surgeon Impressions of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Lung Cancer Care-Lessons from the First Wave in Canada.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has invariably changed the way lung cancer surgical care is provided in Canada. Despite relevant management guidelines, the way in which cancer care has been affected has yet to be described for thoracic surgical populations. Routine lung cancer physiologic and staging assessments are unique in that they are droplet producing and aerosolizing procedures. Our objective was to quantify the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical lung cancer care as perceived by practicing thoracic surgeons during the first wave of the pandemic in Canada. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to members of the Canadian Association of Thoracic Surgeons. The survey was designed to determine surgeon perception of lung cancer preoperative care during the Canadian pandemic-instilled period of resource reallocation compared to standard care. Planned analyses were exploratory in nature; with count and frequency distributions of responses quantified. RESULTS: Fifty-three thoracic surgeons completed the survey. Responses were collected from all Canadian provinces. Little change in access to preoperative imaging was noted. However, a significant decrease in access to lung function and bronchoscopy testing occurred. Pulmonary surgery was perceived to be lengthier with reduced operating theater availability. Despite decreased OR access, only 40% of surgeons were aware of respective institutional mitigation strategies. SUMMARY: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on standard lung cancer care preoperative workup. Further inquiry using institutional data is warranted to quantify its impact on cancer patient outcomes. Assessing the extent and effects of newly present barriers to standard lung cancer care is essential in forming appropriate mitigation strategies and planning for future pandemic waves.

Aerosol Generation During Myringotomy With Tympanostomy Tube Insertion: Implications for Otolaryngology in the COVID-19 Era.

The risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission to health care workers during myringotomy and tympanostomy tube (MT) insertion is unknown. To determine the need for enhanced precautions to prevent potential spread via aerosolized particles, we used an optical particle sizer to measure aerosol generation intraoperatively during a case series of MT insertion. We also discuss our institutional experience with safe pandemic-era perioperative practices. There was no measured increase in aerosol particle number during the procedure at a distance of 30 cm from the external auditory canal. These initial data are reassuring regarding the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to the operating room team due to aerosol generation, but further study is necessary before making definitive recommendations.

Evaluating the feasibility of performing elective gastrointestinal cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: An observational study with 60 days follow-up results of a tertiary referral pandemic hospital.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has interfered with the treatment algorithm for patients with gastrointestinal (GIS) cancer, resulting in deferral of surgery. We presented the outcomes of our patients to evaluate whether surgery could be safely performed and followed-up without delaying any stage of GIS cancer during the pandemic. METHODS: This was an observational study of 177 consecutive patients who underwent elective GIS cancer surgery between March 11 and November 1, 2020. They were assessed regarding their perioperative and 60 days follow-up results for either surgical or COVID-19 status. Morbidity was determined according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC). Continuous and categorical data were presented as median ± SD and number with percentage (%), respectively. RESULTS: The study included 44 gastric, 33 pancreatic, 40 colon, and 59 rectal cancer patients. All patients underwent surgery and received neo/adjuvant treatments without delay. The overall morbidity (CDC grade II-IV) and mortality rates were 10.1% and 3.9%, respectively. None of the patients or medical staff were infected with COVID-19 during the study period. CONCLUSION: GIS cancer surgery can be safely performed even within a pandemic hospital if proper isolation measures can be achieved for both patients and health workers. Regardless of the tumor stage, surgery should not be deferred, depending on unstandardized algorithms.

The management of "fragile" and suspected COVID-19 surgical patients during pandemic: an Italian single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: During Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic entire countries rapidly ran out of intensive care beds, occupied by critically ill infected patients. Elective surgery was initially halted and acute non-deferrable surgical care drastically limited. The presence of COVID-19 patients into intensive care units (ICU) is currently decreasing but their congestion have restricted our therapeutic strategies during the last months. METHODS: In the COVID-19 era eighteen patients (8 men, 10 women) with a mean age of 80 years, needing undelayable abdominal surgery underwent awake open surgery at our Department. Prior to surgery, all patients underwent COVID-19 investigation. In all cases locoregional anesthesia (LA) was performed. Intraoperative and postoperative pain has 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. RESULTS: Mean operative time was 104 minutes. In only one case conversion to general anesthesia was necessary. Postoperative pain was always well controlled. None of them required postoperative intensive care support. Only one perioperative complication occurred. Early readmissions after surgery were never observed. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our experience awake laparotomy under LA resulted feasible, safe, painless and, in specific cases, the only viable option. For patients presenting fragile cardiovascular and respiratory, reserves and in whom general anesthesia (GA) would presumably increase morbidity and mortality we encourage LA as an alternative to GA. In the COVID-19 era, it has become part of our ICU-preserving strategy allowing us to carry out undeferrable surgeries.

Can machine learning optimize the efficiency of the operating room in the era of COVID-19?

SUMMARY: The cancellation of large numbers of surgical procedures because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically extended wait lists and negatively affected patient care and experience. As many facilities resume clinical work owing to the currently low burden of disease in our community, we are faced with operative booking protocols and procedures that are not mathematically designed to optimize efficiency. Using a subset of artificial intelligence called "machine learning," we have shown how the use of operating time can be optimized with a custom Python (a high-level programming language) script and an open source machine-learning algorithm, the ORTools software suite from the Google AI division of Alphabet Inc. This allowed the creation of customized models to optimize the efficiency of operating room booking times, which resulted in a reduction in nursing overtime of 21% - a theoretical cost savings of $469 000 over 3 years.

Anatomic Repair of Left Main Coronary Artery Atresia: Coronary Ostioplasty With Autologous Pulmonary Artery.

BACKGROUND: Left main coronary arterial (LMCA) atresia is a rare coronary arterial anomaly with extremely limited data on the optimal management. We aimed to report our single-surgeon experience of the ostioplasty in patients with LMCA atresia. METHODS: From July 2018 to December 2019, pediatric patients who presented with LMCA atresia and subsequently underwent surgical coronary ostioplasty were recruited into this retrospective study. Concomitant mitral repair was applied when the regurgitation was moderate or more severe. RESULTS: A total of 9 patients diagnosed with LMCA atresia were included. Mitral regurgitation was found in all of them, including 6 (66.7%) severe, 1 (11.1%) moderate, and 2 (22.2%) mild. In addition to ischemic lesions, which were found in 7 (77.8%) patients, structural mitral problems were also common (presented in 7 [77.8%] patients). All the patients underwent coronary ostioplasty with autologous pulmonary arterial patch augmenting the anterior wall of the neo-ostium. Mean aortic cross clamp time and cardiopulmonary bypass time was 88.1 ± 18.9 and 124.6 ± 23.6 minutes, respectively. During a median of 10.9 (range: 3.3 to 17.2) months' follow-up, there was only 1 death at 5 months after surgery. All survivors were recovered uneventfully with normal left-ventricular function; however, with 4 (50.0%) having significant recurrence of mitral regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: With favourable surgical outcomes, coronary ostioplasty for LMCA atresia may be an option of revascularization. Structural mitral problems presented in majority patients, resulting in the requirement of concomitant mitral repair. However, the optimal technique of mitral repair remains unclear.

Head and neck surgery during the coronavirus-19 pandemic: The University of California San Francisco experience.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines regarding head and neck surgical care have evolved during the coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Data on operative management have been limited. METHODS: We compared two cohorts of patients undergoing head and neck or reconstructive surgery between March 16, 2019 and April 16, 2019 (pre-COVID-19) and March 16, 2020 and April 16, 2020 (COVID-19) at an academic center. Perioperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: There were 63 operations during COVID-19 and 84 operations during pre-COVID-19. During COVID-19, a smaller proportion of patients had benign pathology (12% vs 20%, respectively) and underwent thyroid procedures (2% vs 23%) while a greater proportion of patients underwent microvascular reconstruction±ablation (24% vs 12%,). Operative times increased, especially among patients undergoing microvascular reconstruction±ablation (687 ± 112 vs 596 ± 91 minutes, P = .04). Complication rates and length of stay were similar. CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19, perioperative outcomes were similar, operative time increased, and there were no recorded transmissions to staff or patients. Continued surgical management of head and neck cancer patients can be provided safely.

The strategies of perioperative management in orthopedic department during the pandemic of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has broken out and spread rapidly nationwide at the beginning of 2020, which has brought huge impacts to people and work. The current situation of prevention and control is severe and urges guidance for clinicians, especially for medical systems. In the hope of providing a reference and recommendation for the prevention and control of the COVID-19, we carried out research to improve the quality of patient care and prevention during this epidemic. METHODS: All of the staff were trained rapidly to master personal protection in our department. We reviewed the patients' discharged records who underwent surgery in our department during January 1 to March 1, 2019, and January 1 to March 1, 2020. The management of the surgery patients and flow charts were described and analyzed. Post-operation outcomes of the patients include duration, complications, surgical site infection (SSI), system infection, re-operation, and mortality. Both chi-squared test and Student's t test were performed to determine the relationship between the two periods in terms of post-operation outcomes. RESULTS: Descriptive statistics analysis revealed that demographic of the patients between the two periods is similar. We had benefited from the strict flowcharts, smart robot, and protection equipment during the perioperative managements for orthopedic patients. With the help of the strict flow charts and smart equipment, post-operation outcomes of the patients revealed that the rates of the complications and re-operation had been reduced significantly (p < 0.05), while duration of operation, SSI, and system infection had no significant difference between two periods (p > 0.05). No patient and staff caught COVID-19 infection or mortality during the epidemic. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that medical quality and efficiency were affected little with the help of strategies described above during the epidemic, which could be a reference tool for medical staff in routine clinical practice for admission of patients around the world. What is more, the provided strategies, which may evolve over time, could be used as empirical guidance and reference for orthopedic peers to get through the pandemic and ensure the normal operation of the hospital.