BJS commission on surgery and perioperative care post-COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020 and global surgical practice was compromised. This Commission aimed to document and reflect on the changes seen in the surgical environment during the pandemic, by reviewing colleagues' experiences and published evidence. METHODS: In late 2020, BJS contacted colleagues across the global surgical community and asked them to describe how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had affected their practice. In addition to this, the Commission undertook a literature review on the impact of COVID-19 on surgery and perioperative care. A thematic analysis was performed to identify the issues most frequently encountered by the correspondents, as well as the solutions and ideas suggested to address them. RESULTS: BJS received communications for this Commission from leading clinicians and academics across a variety of surgical specialties in every inhabited continent. The responses from all over the world provided insights into multiple facets of surgical practice from a governmental level to individual clinical practice and training. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has uncovered a variety of problems in healthcare systems, including negative impacts on surgical practice. Global surgical multidisciplinary teams are working collaboratively to address research questions about the future of surgery in the post-COVID-19 era. The COVID-19 pandemic is severely damaging surgical training. The establishment of a multidisciplinary ethics committee should be encouraged at all surgical oncology centres. Innovative leadership and collaboration is vital in the post-COVID-19 era.

Evidence, not eminence, for surgical management during COVID-19: a multifaceted systematic review and a model for rapid clinical change.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus (COVID-19) forced surgical evolution worldwide. The extent to which national evidence-based recommendations, produced by the current authors early in 2020, remain valid, is unclear. To inform global surgical management and a model for rapid clinical change, this study aimed to characterize surgical evolution following COVID-19 through a multifaceted systematic review. METHODS: Rapid reviews were conducted targeting intraoperative safety, personal protective equipment and triage, alongside a conventional systematic review identifying evidence-based guidance for surgical management. Targeted searches of PubMed and Embase from 31 December 2019 were repeated weekly until 7 August 2020, and systematic searches repeated monthly until 30 June 2020. Literature was stratified using Evans' hierarchy of evidence. Narrative data were analysed for consistency with earlier recommendations. The systematic review rated quality using the AGREE II and AMSTAR tools, was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020205845. Meta-analysis was not conducted. RESULTS: From 174 targeted searches and six systematic searches, 1256 studies were identified for the rapid reviews and 21 for the conventional systematic review. Of studies within the rapid reviews, 903 (71.9 per cent) had lower-quality design, with 402 (32.0 per cent) being opinion-based. Quality of studies in the systematic review ranged from low to moderate. Consistency with recommendations made previously by the present authors was observed despite 1017 relevant subsequent publications. CONCLUSION: The evidence-based recommendations produced early in 2020 remained valid despite many subsequent publications. Weaker studies predominated and few guidelines were evidence-based. Extracted clinical solutions were globally implementable. An evidence-based model for rapid clinical change is provided that may benefit surgical management during this pandemic and future times of urgency.

[COVID-19 Vaccination for Cancer Patients: Progress and Preliminary Recommendations].

The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a serious impact on global health. COVID-19 vaccines may be one of the most effective measure to end the pandemic. High infection risk and higher serious incident and mortality rates have been shown in cancer patients with COVID-19. Therefore, cancer patients should be the priority group for COVID-19 prevention. Until now, data of COVID-19 vaccination for cancer patients is lacking. We review the interim data of safety and immune-efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients based on the latest studies. Due to the complicated immune systems of cancer patients caused by the malignancy and anticancer treatments, we proposed preliminary specific COVID-19 vaccination recommendations for cancer patients with different anticancer treatments and at different stages of the disease. Preventing COVID-19 with vaccinations for cancer patients is crucial, and we call for more large-scale clinical trials and real-world studies, for further COVID-19 vaccination recommendations development.
.

30-Day postoperative COVID-19 outcomes in 398 patients from regional hospitals utilising a designated COVID-19 minimal surgical site pathway.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative pulmonary complications and mortality rates during the COVID-19 pandemic have been higher than expected, leading to mass cancellation of elective operating in the UK. To minimise this, the Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Foundation Trust elective surgery hub and the executive team at London Bridge Hospital (LBH) created an elective operating framework at LBH, a COVID-19 minimal site, in which patients self-isolated for two weeks and proceeded with surgery only following a negative preoperative SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction swab. The aim was to determine the rates of rates of postoperative COVID-19 infection. METHODS: The collaboration involved three large hospital trusts, covering the geographic area of south-east London. All patients were referred to LBH for elective surgery. Patients were followed up by telephone interview at four weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-eight patients from 13 surgical specialties were included in the analysis. The median age was 60 (IQR 29-71) years. Sixty-three per cent (252/398) were female. In total, 78.4% of patients had an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of 1-2 and the average BMI was 27.2 (IQR 23.7-31.8) kg/m2. Some 83.6% (336/402) were 'major' operations. The rate of COVID-19-related death in our cohort was 0.25% (1/398). Overall, there was a 1.26% (5/398) 30-day postoperative all-cause mortality rate. Seven patients (1.76%) reported COVID-19 symptoms, but none attended the emergency department or were readmitted to hospital as a result. CONCLUSION: The risk of contracting COVID-19 in our elective operating framework was very low. We demonstrate that high-volume major surgery is safe, even at the peak of the pandemic, if patients are screened appropriately preoperatively.

Impact of lockdown on emergency general surgery during first 2020 COVID-19 outbreak.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and analyze the impact of lockdown strategy due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on emergency general surgery (EGS) in the Milan area at the beginning of pandemic outbreak. METHODS: A survey was distributed to 14 different hospitals of the Milan area to analyze the variation of EGS procedures. Each hospital reported the number of EGS procedures in the same time frame comparing 2019 and 2020. The survey revealed that the number of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in 2020 was reduced by 19% when compared with 2019. The decrease was statistically significant only for abdominal wall surgery. Interestingly, in 2020, there was an increase of three procedures: surgical intervention for acute mesenteric ischemia (p = 0.002), drainage of perianal abscesses (p = 0.000285), and cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: During the first COVID-19 pandemic wave in the metropolitan area of Milan, the number of patients operated for emergency diseases decreased by around 19%. We believe that this decrease is related either to the fear of the population to ask for emergency department (ED) consultation and to a shift towards a more non-operative management in the surgeons 'decision making' process. The increase of acute mesenteric ischaemia and perianal abscess might be related to the modification of dietary habits and reduction of physical activity related to the lockdown.

Impact of the first COVID-19 shutdown on patient volumes and surgical procedures of a Level I trauma center.

PURPOSE: In Dec 2019, COVID-19 was first recognized and led to a worldwide pandemic. The German government implemented a shutdown in Mar 2020, affecting outpatient and hospital care. The aim of the present article was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 shutdown on patient volumes and surgical procedures of a Level I trauma center in Germany. METHODS: All emergency patients were recorded retrospectively during the shutdown and compared to a calendar-matched control period (CTRL). Total emergency patient contacts including trauma mechanisms, injury patterns and operation numbers were recorded including absolute numbers, incidence proportions and risk ratios. RESULTS: During the shutdown period, we observed a decrease of emergency patient cases (417) compared to CTRL (575), a decrease of elective cases (42 vs. 13) and of the total number of operations (397 vs. 325). Incidence proportions of emergency operations increased from 8.2 to 12.2% (shutdown) and elective surgical cases decreased (11.1 vs. 4.3%). As we observed a decrease for most trauma mechanisms and injury patterns, we found an increasing incidence proportion for severe open fractures. Household-related injuries were reported with an increasing incidence proportion from 26.8 to 47.5% (shutdown). We found an increasing tendency of trauma and injuries related to psychological disorders. CONCLUSION: This analysis shows a decrease of total patient numbers in an emergency department of a Level I trauma center and a decrease of the total number of operations during the shutdown period. Concurrently, we observed an increase of severe open fractures and emergency operations. Furthermore, trauma mechanism changed with less traffic, work and sports-related accidents.

Surgical initial experience in patients with COVID-19.

ANTECEDENTES: La pandemia de COVID-19 ha ocasionado que los servicios de cirugía y de salud en todo el mundo tengan que reorganizarse y planear para poder brindar la mejor atención a los pacientes, con la protección necesaria para el personal de salud. Algunos de estos pacientes requerirán tratamiento quirúrgico, ya sea electivo o de urgencia. OBJETIVO: Reportar la experiencia inicial en el manejo de pacientes con COVID-19 que ameritaron tratamiento quirúrgico por los servicios de cirugía de un hospital de referencia. MÉTODO: Revisión de los protocolos quirúrgicos, equipo de protección personal usado por los equipos quirúrgicos y resultados del tratamiento de 42 pacientes sometidos a cirugía en un periodo de 4 meses. RESULTADOS: Fueron intervenidos 42 pacientes con COVID-19. Treinta pacientes tenían diagnóstico de infección por SARS-CoV-2 y en 12 casos el diagnóstico fue clínico y por imagen. Las cirugías más frecuentes fueron traqueostomía en 16 pacientes (38%) y laparotomías exploradoras en 8 pacientes (19%). La mediana de estancia posoperatoria fue de 17 días y la mortalidad durante los primeros 30 días fue del 26%. CONCLUSIONES: Es necesaria la reorganización de los departamentos quirúrgicos y del hospital para poder atender adecuadamente a los pacientes con COVID-19 y proteger al personal de salud. Los pacientes pueden presentan patologías que requieran tratamiento quirúrgico. Relacionado con la infección y la mayor frecuencia de comorbilidad, la mortalidad de estos pacientes es elevada. INTRODUCTION: the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a reorganization of hospital and general surgery departments worldwide to assure the best medical and surgical treatment of patients with this disease and protection of the health-related personnel. Some of them will require surgical treatment either elective or urgent. OBJECTIVE: report the initial experience in the management of patients with COVID-19 in a third level hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: a review of the surgical protocols, personal protection equipment used by the surgical teams, and results of the treatment of forty-two patients submitted to surgery. RESULTS: During four months (April-July 2020) forty-two patients with suspicion or confirmed infection of SARS-CoV2 underwent surgical treatment. The most common surgery was tracheostomy in 16 patients (38%) followed by exploratory laparotomy in 8 patients (19%). The median postoperative stay was 17 days and the thirty-day postoperative mortality rate was 26%. CONCLUSIONS: reorganization of the general surgery department and the hospital, favors adequate management and treatment of patients with COVID-19 and protection to the health-related personnel. Due to the usual co-existence of comorbidities and pulmonary complications the postoperative mortality of these patients is high.

The management of surgical patients in the emergency setting during COVID-19 pandemic: the WSES position paper.

BACKGROUND: Since the COVID-19 pandemic has occurred, nations showed their unpreparedness to deal with a mass casualty incident of this proportion and severity, which resulted in a tremendous number of deaths even among healthcare workers. The World Society of Emergency Surgery conceived this position paper with the purpose of providing evidence-based recommendations for the management of emergency surgical patients under COVID-19 pandemic for the safety of the patient and healthcare workers. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) through the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and SCOPUS databases. Synthesis of evidence, statements and recommendations were developed in accordance with the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Given the limitation of the evidence, the current document represents an effort to join selected high-quality articles and experts' opinion. CONCLUSIONS: The aim of this position paper is to provide an exhaustive guidelines to perform emergency surgery in a safe and protected environment for surgical patients and for healthcare workers under COVID-19 and to offer the best management of COVID-19 patients needing for an emergency surgical treatment. We recommend screening for COVID-19 infection at the emergency department all acute surgical patients who are waiting for hospital admission and urgent surgery. The screening work-up provides a RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swab test and a baseline (non-contrast) chest CT or a chest X-ray or a lungs US, depending on skills and availability. If the COVID-19 screening is not completed we recommend keeping the patient in isolation until RT-PCR swab test result is not available, and to manage him/she such as an overt COVID patient. The management of COVID-19 surgical patients is multidisciplinary. If an immediate surgical procedure is mandatory, whether laparoscopic or via open approach, we recommend doing every effort to protect the operating room staff for the safety of the patient.

An Aerosol Containment and Filtration Tent for Intubation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background. Exposure to infectious droplets confers a high risk for infection transmission by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Aerosolizing procedures pose particular concern for increasing healthcare workers' (HCWs) risks of infection. Multiple creative personal protective equipment solutions have been utilized to minimize exposure to infectious particles; however, the overall benefit of many of these devices is limited by a number of factors. Methods. We designed an intubation tent consisting of a metal frame and a clear plastic sheet. The flexible walls of our tent offer increased maneuverability & access, although the efficacy in reducing risk of transmission to HCWs remained unclear. Using an atomizer, particle generator, and matchstick smoke, we simulated the generation of infectious respiratory droplets and aerosols and tested whether our device effectively decreased the concentration of these particles to which a provider might be exposed. Finally, we tested whether the addition of a vacuum fan fit with a high efficiency particulate air filter designed to evacuate contaminated air would influence particle concentrations inside and outside the tent. Results. Droplet dispersion tests with the tent in place showed that the simulated droplet distribution was limited to surfaces within the tent. Aerosol testing under a variety of circumstances consistently showed only a minor rise in particle concentration in the air outside the tent despite an initial peak of particle concentration during generation within. All testing demonstrated declining inside concentrations over time. Conclusions. Our simulations suggest our device has the potential to effectively decrease HCWs' exposure to infectious droplets and aerosolized viral particles.

Surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: operating room suggestions from an international Delphi process.

BACKGROUND: Operating room (OR) practice during the COVID-19 pandemic is driven by basic principles, shared experience and nascent literature. This study aimed to identify the knowledge needs of the global OR workforce, and characterize supportive evidence to establish consensus. METHODS: A rapid, modified Delphi exercise was performed, open to all stakeholders, informed via an online international collaborative evaluation. RESULTS: The consensus exercise was completed by 339 individuals from 41 countries (64·3 per cent UK). Consensus was reached on 71 of 100 statements, predominantly standardization of OR pathways, OR staffing and preoperative screening or diagnosis. The highest levels of consensus were observed in statements relating to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and risk distribution (96-99 per cent), clear consent processes (96 per cent), multidisciplinary decision-making and working (97 per cent). Statements yielding equivocal responses predominantly related to technical and procedure choices, including: decontamination (40-68 per cent), laminar flow systems (13-61 per cent), PPE reuse (58 per cent), risk stratification of patients (21-48 per cent), open versus laparoscopic surgery (63 per cent), preferential cholecystostomy in biliary disease (48 per cent), and definition of aerosol-generating procedures (19 per cent). CONCLUSION: High levels of consensus existed for many statements within each domain, supporting much of the initial guidance issued by professional bodies. However, there were several contentious areas, which represent urgent targets for investigation to delineate safe COVID-19-related OR practice.

ANTECEDENTES: La práctica en el quirófano (operating room, OR) durante la pandemia por la COVID- 19 se basa en principios básicos, experiencias compartidas y literatura reciente. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo identificar las necesidades de conocimiento global del personal de quirófano y caracterizar la evidencia existente para establecer un consenso. MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio basado en una metodología Delphi modificada y rápida, abierta a todos los interesados y a través de una evaluación colaborativa internacional online. RESULTADOS: El procedimiento de consenso fue completado por 339 personas de 41 países (64% Reino Unido). Se llegó a un consenso en 71/100 ítems, predominantemente en relación a la estandarización de los circuitos en OR, la dotación de personal y el cribaje preoperatorio o el diagnóstico. Los niveles más altos de consenso se observaron en los ítems relacionadas con el equipo personal y de protección (personal protective equipment, PPE) apropiado y la distribución de riesgos (96-99%), claridad en los procesos de consentimiento (96%), toma de decisiones multidisciplinarias y trabajo (97%). Los ítems que generaron respuestas equívocas estaban relacionadas principalmente con opciones técnicas y de procedimiento, incluyendo: descontaminación (40-68%), sistemas de flujo laminar (13-61%), reutilización de PPE (58%), estratificación de los pacientes por riesgo (21-48%), cirugía abierta versus laparoscópica (63%), colecistostomía preferente en patología biliar (48%) y definición de procedimientos generadores de aerosol (19%). CONCLUSIÓN: Existieron altos niveles de consenso para muchos ítems dentro de cada ámbito, apoyando gran parte de la orientación inicial emitida por los organismos profesionales. Sin embargo, surgieron varias áreas polémicas, que representan objetivos urgentes para la investigación para poder definir la práctica segura en OR relacionada con la COVID-19.

Challenging retrovesical mass in men: report of a rare liposarcoma case with concurrent COVID-19 infection.

We describe a case of retrovesical liposarcoma in a male patient with concurrent COVID-19. A 50-year-old man had lower urinary tract symptoms and dull pain along his right gluteus. Due to COVID-19 infection, management was delayed. During self-isolation, the patient developed urinary retention and his pain level was an eight on the Visual Analogue Scale. A urinary catheter and an epidural catheter were inserted without any difficulty. Abdominal-pelvic MRI revealed a retrovesical mass suspected of liposarcoma with clear borders from surrounding organs. Following two consecutive negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests, we proceeded with surgery. Histopathology was dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Postoperatively, the patient suffered reactivation of COVID-19, and he was eventually discharged after two consecutive negative results on the PCR test on Post Operative Day (POD)-10. Retrovesical dedifferentiated liposarcoma is rare and considered as high-grade liposarcoma. Although surgery may exacerbate COVID-19 infection, surgical resection of symptomatic high-grade sarcoma is prioritised and performed as soon as no infection detected.

Theatre ventilation.

INTRODUCTION: Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been significant disruption to all surgical specialties. In the UK, units have cancelled elective surgery and a decrease in aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) was favoured. Centres around the world advocate the use of negative pressure environments for AGPs in reducing the spread of infectious airborne particles. We present an overview of operating theatre ventilation systems and the respective evidence with relation to surgical site infection (SSI) and airborne pathogen transmission in light of COVID-19. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases. Search terms included "COVID-19", "theatre ventilation", "laminar", "turbulent" and "negative pressure". FINDINGS: Evidence for laminar flow ventilation in reducing the rate of SSI in orthopaedic surgery is widely documented. There is little evidence to support its use in general surgery. Following previous viral outbreaks, some centres have introduced negative pressure ventilation in an attempt to decrease exposure of airborne pathogens to staff and surrounding areas. This has again been suggested during the COVID-19 pandemic. A limited number of studies show some positive results for the use of negative pressure ventilation systems and reduction in spread of pathogens; however, cost, accessibility and duration of conversion remain an unexplored issue. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to advocate large scale conversion at this time. Nevertheless, it may be useful for each centre to have its own negative pressure room available for AGPs and high risk patients.

The provision of a time-critical elective surgical service during the COVID-19 Crisis: a UK experience.

INTRODUCTION: With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, all elective surgery was temporarily suspended in the UK, allowing for diversion of resource to manage the anticipated surge of critically unwell patients. Continuing to deliver time-critical surgical care is important to avoid excess morbidity and mortality from pathologies unrelated to COVID-19. We describe the implementation and short-term surgical outcomes from a system to deliver time-critical elective surgical care to patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A protocol for the prioritisation and safe delivery of time-critical surgery at a COVID-19 'clean' site was implemented at the Nuffield Health Exeter Hospital, an independent sector hospital in the southwest of England. Outcomes to 30 days postoperatively were recorded, including unplanned admissions after daycase surgery, readmissions and complications, as well as the incidence of perioperative COVID-19 infection in patients and staff. RESULTS: A total of 128 surgical procedures were performed during a 31-day period by a range of specialties including breast, plastics, urology, gynaecology, vascular and cardiology. There was one unplanned admission and and two readmissions. Six complications were identified, and all were Clavien-Dindo grade 1 or 2. All 128 patients had preoperative COVID-19 swabs, one of which was positive and the patient had their surgery delayed. Ten patients were tested for COVID-19 postoperatively, with none testing positive. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated the implementation of a safe system for delivery of time-critical elective surgical care at a COVID-19 clean site. Other healthcare providers may benefit from implementation of similar methodology as hospitals plan to restart elective surgery.