Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 26
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
2.
Br J Surg ; 107(13): 1708-1712, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1384126

ABSTRACT

This study used a national administrative database to estimate perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection risk, and associated mortality, relative to nosocomial transmission rates. The impact of nosocomial transmission was greatest after major emergency surgery, whereas laparoscopic surgery may be protective owing to reduced duration of hospital stay. Procedure-specific risk estimates are provided to facilitate surgical decision-making and informed consent. Estimated risks.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Cross Infection/transmission , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Infection Control/methods , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/mortality , COVID-19 , Cause of Death , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Databases, Factual , Elective Surgical Procedures/methods , Emergencies , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Prognosis , Risk Assessment , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control , Survival Analysis
3.
JSLS ; 25(2)2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1305863

ABSTRACT

Background and Objectives: Operating-room procedures canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic depleted hospital revenue and potentially worsened patient outcomes through disease progression. Despite safeguards to resume elective procedures, patients remain apprehensive of contracting COVID-19 during hospitalization and recovery. We investigated symptomatic COVID-19 infection in patients undergoing operating-room procedures during the spring 2020 outbreak in Fairfield County, CT, a heavily affected New York Metropolitan area. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 419 operating-room patients in Danbury and Norwalk Hospitals between 3/16/20 and 5/19/20. COVID-19 infection was assessed through test results or documented well-being within 2 weeks postdischarge. Variables studied were procedure classification, length of stay, and discharge disposition. Postprocedural COVID-19 infection was analyzed using binomial tests comparing rates to state-mandated infection data. Results: Six patients developed COVID-19 after 212 urgent-elective and 207 emergent procedures. Overall postprocedural infection risk was equivalent to community infection risk (P > .05). No infections occurred in 1-2 day stays or urgent-elective procedures with discharge home (both P < .05). Discharges home reduced the risk to one-sixth of community spread (P = .03). Risk of infection doubled in hospitalizations > 5 days (P = .05) and quadrupled in discharges to extended care facilities (P = .01). Discussion: Operating-room procedures did not increase the risk of symptomatic COVID-19 infection during an outbreak. Urgent-elective and emergent procedures during further outbreaks appear safe when anticipating short stays with discharges home. When anticipating prolonged hospitalization or discharges to facilities, appropriate delay of urgent-elective procedures may minimize risk of infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Disease Transmission, Infectious/statistics & numerical data , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/transmission , Connecticut/epidemiology , Cross Infection/virology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , Operating Rooms , Postoperative Complications/virology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl ; 103(7): 524-529, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1288677

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous bariatric surgical units globally have halted weight loss surgery. Obesity itself has been shown to be a predictor of poor outcome in people infected with the virus. The aim of this study was to report our experience as a high-volume bariatric institution resuming elective weight loss surgery safely amidst emergency admissions of COVID-19-positive patients. METHODS: A standard operating procedure based on national guidance and altered to accommodate local considerations was initiated across the hospital. Data were collected prospectively for 50 consecutive patients undergoing bariatric surgery following recommencement of elective surgery after the first national lockdown in the UK. RESULTS: Between 28 June and 5 August 2020, a total of 50 patients underwent bariatric surgery of whom 94% were female. Median age was 41 years and median body mass index was 43.8 (interquartile range 40.0-48.8)kg/m2. Half of the patients (n = 25/50) underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and half underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Of these 50 patients, 9 (18%) had revisional bariatric surgery. Overall median length of hospital stay was 1 day, with 96% of the study population being discharged within 24h of surgery. The overall rate of readmission was 6% and one patient (2%) returned to theatre with an obstruction proximal to jejuno-jejunal anastomosis. None of the patients exhibited symptoms or tested positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: With appropriately implemented measures and precautions, resumption of bariatric surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic appears feasible and safe with no increased risk to patients.


Subject(s)
Bariatric Surgery/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Obesity, Morbid/surgery , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Adult , Bariatric Surgery/standards , Bariatric Surgery/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Testing/standards , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , Clinical Protocols/standards , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Elective Surgical Procedures/standards , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Enhanced Recovery After Surgery/standards , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Obesity, Morbid/complications , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Surgery Department, Hospital/organization & administration , Surgery Department, Hospital/standards , Surgery Department, Hospital/statistics & numerical data
5.
J Am Coll Surg ; 233(3): 435-444.e1, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1260777

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: High scores in the Medically Necessary, Time-Sensitive (MeNTS) scoring system, used for elective surgical prioritization during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, are assumed to be associated with worse outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the MeNTS scoring system in patients undergoing elective surgery during restricted capacity of our institution, with or without moderate or severe postoperative complications. STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective observational study, MeNTS scores of patients undergoing elective operations during May and June 2020 were calculated. Postoperative complication severity (classified as Group Clavien-Dindo < II or Group Clavien-Dindo ≥ II), as well as Duke Activity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, presence of smoking, leukocytosis, lymphopenia, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), operation and anesthesia characteristics, intensive care requirement and duration, length of hospital stay, rehospitalization, and mortality were noted. RESULTS: There were 223 patients analyzed. MeNTS score was higher in the Clavien-Dindo ≥ II Group compared with the Clavien-Dindo < II Group (50.98 ± 8.98 vs 44.27 ± 8.90 respectively, p < 0.001). Duke activity status index (DASI) scores were lower, and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class, presence of smoking, leukocytosis, lymphopenia, elevated CRP, and intensive care requirement were higher in the Clavien-Dindo ≥ II Group (p < 0.01). Length of hospital stay was longer in the Clavien-Dindo ≥ II Group (15 [range 2-90] vs 4 [1-30] days; p < 0.001). Mortality was observed in 8 patients. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of MeNTS and DASI were 0.69 and 0.71, respectively, for predicting moderate/severe complications. CONCLUSIONS: Although significant, MeNTS score had low discriminating power in distinguishing patients with moderate/severe complications. Incorporation of a cardiovascular functional capacity measure could improve the scoring system.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Pandemics , Postoperative Complications/classification , Triage/methods , Anesthesia , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , COVID-19/diagnosis , Critical Care , Elective Surgical Procedures/classification , Elective Surgical Procedures/mortality , Female , Health Priorities , Humans , Length of Stay , Leukocytosis/diagnosis , Lymphopenia/diagnosis , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Readmission , Physical Functional Performance , Postoperative Complications/mortality , Prospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , Severity of Illness Index , Smoking , Treatment Outcome , Turkey
6.
Clinics ; 76: e2507, 2021. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-1160769

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), all health services worldwide underwent profound changes, leading to the suspension of many elective surgeries. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of elective colorectal surgery during the pandemic. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional, single-center study. Patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic between March 10 and September 9, 2020, were included. Patient data on sex, age, diagnosis, types of procedures, hospital stay, mortality, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) preoperative screening tests were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 103 colorectal surgical procedures were planned, and 99 were performed. Four surgeries were postponed due to positive preoperative screening for SARS-CoV-2. Surgical procedures were performed for colorectal cancer (n=90) and inflammatory bowel disease (n=9). Laparoscopy was the approach of choice for 43 patients (43.4%), 53 (53.5%) procedures were open, and 3 (3%) procedures were robotic. Five patients developed COVID-19 in the postoperative period, and three of them died in the intensive care unit (n=3/5, 60% mortality). Two other patients died due to surgical complications unrelated to COVID-19 (n=2/94, 2.1% mortality) (p<0.01). Hospital stay was longer in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection than in those without (38.4 versushttps://doi.org/10.3 days, respectively, p<0.01). Of the 99 patients who received surgical care during the pandemic, 94 were safely discharged (95%). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that elective colorectal surgical procedures may be safely performed during the pandemic; however, preoperative testing should be performed to reduce in-hospital infection rates, since the mortality rate due to SARS-CoV-2 in this setting is particularly high.


Subject(s)
Humans , Colorectal Neoplasms , Colorectal Surgery , Coronavirus Infections , Cross-Sectional Studies , Retrospective Studies , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Pandemics , Betacoronavirus
7.
Br J Surg ; 108(1): 88-96, 2021 01 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1112088

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Surgical services are preparing to scale up in areas affected by COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the association between preoperative SARS-CoV-2 testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective cancer surgery. METHODS: This international cohort study included adult patients undergoing elective surgery for cancer in areas affected by SARS-CoV-2 up to 19 April 2020. Patients suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection before operation were excluded. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pulmonary complications at 30 days after surgery. Preoperative testing strategies were adjusted for confounding using mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Of 8784 patients (432 hospitals, 53 countries), 2303 patients (26.2 per cent) underwent preoperative testing: 1458 (16.6 per cent) had a swab test, 521 (5.9 per cent) CT only, and 324 (3.7 per cent) swab and CT. Pulmonary complications occurred in 3.9 per cent, whereas SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in 2.6 per cent. After risk adjustment, having at least one negative preoperative nasopharyngeal swab test (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; P = 0.040) was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications. Swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in areas with a high 14-day SARS-CoV-2 case notification rate, but not before minor surgery or in low-risk areas. To prevent one pulmonary complication, the number needed to swab test before major or minor surgery was 18 and 48 respectively in high-risk areas, and 73 and 387 in low-risk areas. CONCLUSION: Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in high SARS-CoV-2 risk areas. There was no proven benefit of swab testing before minor surgery in low-risk areas.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Lung Diseases/etiology , Nasopharynx/virology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/surgery , Pandemics , Postoperative Complications , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Updates Surg ; 73(1): 173-177, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1002182

ABSTRACT

The outbreak of COVID-19 has led some leading surgical societies to postpone colorectal cancer resections, support the employment of low-risk strategies in patients requiring colorectal surgery, such as construction of a stoma rather than primary anastomosis, in order to minimize the risk of potentially life-threatening complications. They have also recommended against the use of the laparoscopic approach. However, the evidence supporting these recommendations is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of colorectal resections during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a retrospective review of a prospective institutional database. All consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergent colorectal resections between March 9 and April 15, 2020, were compared to those treated in the same period of time in 2019. Despite an overall reduction in the surgical activity of 56.3% in 2020, the two groups were similar in terms of absolute numbers of colorectal resections, type of surgery and use of laparoscopy. The overall postoperative complications rate was similar: 20% in 2019 versus 14.9% in 2020 (p = 0.518), without any difference in terms of severity. No patient during the postoperative course got infected by COVID-19, as well as none from the surgical team. Median length of hospital stay was 5 days in both groups (p = 0.555). Postponing surgery in colorectal cancer patients and performing more stomas rather than direct anastomosis is not justified. The routine use of laparoscopy should not be abandoned, thus not depriving patients of its clinically relevant early short-term benefits over open surgery.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Colectomy/adverse effects , Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Laparoscopy/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Proctectomy/adverse effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Selection , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
11.
ANZ J Surg ; 91(1-2): 33-41, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-998741

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There have been several reports that co-infection with the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at the time of surgery increases mortality. The aim of this study was to estimate the effect size of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on post-operative mortality by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was performed. A search was undertaken using electronic bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Library to identify eligible studies published from 1 November 2019 until 21 August 2020. Eligible papers for meta-analysis were those that provided mortality rates following elective and emergency surgery in both COVID-19 positive and negative patients. Forest plots and estimates of odds of death related to having COVID-19 were formed using MedCalc version 9.6 software. Funnel plots to assess for publication bias and heterogeneity were formed in Meta-Essentials. RESULTS: There were 140 records screened for inclusion. Full texts of 39 articles were reviewed, and 36 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. There were eight studies eligible for meta-analysis. There was a total of 193 operations performed on patients with a concurrent COVID-19 infection and 910 performed on patients who were COVID-19 negative. The odds ratio for mortality in patients who underwent a surgical procedure while COVID-19 positive was 7.9 (95% confidence interval: 3.2-19.4). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirms that concurrent COVID-19 infection increases the risk of surgical mortality. The magnitude of this risk mandates that strategies are developed to mitigate the risk at both an individual and system level.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Elective Surgical Procedures/mortality , Emergency Service, Hospital , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/surgery , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Humans , Survival Rate
12.
J Am Coll Surg ; 232(4): 387-395, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-988251

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Preoperative discussions around postoperative discharge planning have been amplified by the COVID pandemic. We wished to determine whether our preoperative frailty screen would predict postoperative loss of independence (LOI). STUDY DESIGN: This single-institutional study included demographic, procedural, and outcomes data from patients 65 years or older who underwent frailty screening before a surgical procedure. Frailty was assessed using the Edmonton Frail Scale. The Operative Severity Score was used to categorize procedures. The Hierarchical Condition Category risk-adjustment score, as calculated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was included. LOI was defined as an increase in support outside of the home after discharge. Univariable, multivariable logistic regressions, and adjusted postestimation analyses for predictive probabilities of best fit were performed. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty-five patients met inclusion criteria and LOI was seen in 38 patients (7%). Patients with LOI were older, had a lower BMI, a higher Edmonton Frail Scale score (7 vs 3.0; p < 0.001), and a higher Hierarchical Condition Category score than patients without LOI. Being frail and undergoing a procedure with an Operative Severity Score of 3 or higher was independently associated with an increased risk of LOI. In addition, social dependency, depression, and limited mobility were associated with an increased risk for LOI. On multivariable modeling, frailty status, undergoing an operation with an Operative Severity Score of 3 or higher, and having a Hierarchical Condition Category score ≥1 were the most predictive of LOI (odds ratio 12.72; 95% CI, 12.04 to 13.44; p < 0.001). In addition, self-reported depression, weight loss, and limited mobility were associated with a nearly 11-fold increased risk of postoperative LOI. CONCLUSIONS: This study was novel, as it identified clear, generalizable risk factors for LOI. In addition, our findings support the implementation of preoperative assessments to aid in care coordination and provide specific targets for intervention.


Subject(s)
Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Frailty/epidemiology , Functional Status , Geriatric Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Preoperative Care/methods , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Frailty/diagnosis , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Postoperative Period , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Factors
13.
Am J Surg ; 222(2): 431-437, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-987001

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Reports on emergency surgery performed soon after a COVID-19 infection that are not controlled for premorbid risk-factors show increased 30-day mortality and pulmonary complications. This contributed to a virtual cessation of elective surgery during the pandemic surge. To inform evidence-based guidance on the decisions for surgery during the recovery phase of the pandemic, we compare 30-day outcomes in patients testing positive for COVID-19 before their operation, to contemporary propensity-matched COVID-19 negative patients undergoing the same procedures. METHODS: This prospective multicentre study included all patients undergoing surgery at 170 Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals across the United States. COVID-19 positive patients were propensity matched to COVID-19 negative patients on demographic and procedural factors. We compared 30-day outcomes between COVID-19 positive and negative patients, and the effect of time from testing positive to the date of procedure (≤10 days, 11-30 days and >30 days) on outcomes. RESULTS: Between March 1 and August 15, 2020, 449 COVID-19 positive and 51,238 negative patients met inclusion criteria. Propensity matching yielded 432 COVID-19 positive and 1256 negative patients among whom half underwent elective surgery. Infected patients had longer hospital stays (median seven days), higher rates of pneumonia (20.6%), ventilator requirement (7.6%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS, 17.1%), septic shock (13.7%), and ischemic stroke (5.8%), while mortality, reoperations and readmissions were not significantly different. Higher odds for ventilation and stroke persisted even when surgery was delayed 11-30 days, and for pneumonia, ARDS, and septic shock >30 days after a positive test. DISCUSSION: 30-day pulmonary, septic, and ischaemic complications are increased in COVID-19 positive, compared to propensity score matched negative patients. Odds for several complications persist despite a delay beyond ten days after testing positive. Individualized risk-stratification by pulmonary and atherosclerotic comorbidities should be considered when making decisions for delaying surgery in infected patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Time-to-Treatment/standards , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , Clinical Decision-Making/methods , Elective Surgical Procedures/standards , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals, Veterans/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Propensity Score , Prospective Studies , Risk Assessment/standards , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Time Factors , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology
15.
Bone Joint J ; 102-B(9): 1256-1260, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-844475

ABSTRACT

AIMS: The risk to patients and healthcare workers of resuming elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been difficult to quantify. This has prompted governing bodies to adopt a cautious approach that may be impractical and financially unsustainable. The lack of evidence has made it impossible for surgeons to give patients an informed perspective of the consequences of elective surgery in the presence of SARS-CoV-2. This study aims to determine, for the UK population, the probability of a patient being admitted with an undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection and their resulting risk of death; taking into consideration the current disease prevalence, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, and preassessment pathway. METHODS: The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection with a false negative test was calculated using a lower-end RT-PCR sensitivity of 71%, specificity of 95%, and the UK disease prevalence of 0.24% reported in May 2020. Subsequently, a case fatality rate of 20.5% was applied as a worst-case scenario. RESULTS: The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection with a false negative preoperative test was 0.07% (around 1 in 1,400). The risk of a patient with an undetected infection being admitted for surgery and subsequently dying from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is estimated at approximately 1 in 7,000. However, if an estimate of the current global infection fatality rate (1.04%) is applied, the risk of death would be around 1 in 140,000, at most. This calculation does not take into account the risk of nosocomial infection. Conversely, it does not factor in that patients will also be clinically assessed and asked to self-isolate prior to surgery. CONCLUSION: Our estimation suggests that the risk of patients being inadvertently admitted with an undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection for elective orthopaedic surgery is relatively low. Accordingly, the risk of death following elective orthopaedic surgery is low, even when applying the worst-case fatality rate. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1256-1260.


Subject(s)
Asymptomatic Diseases , Cause of Death , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/mortality , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Elective Surgical Procedures/mortality , False Negative Reactions , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Postoperative Complications/physiopathology , Risk Assessment , Survival Rate , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom
16.
J Med Ethics ; 46(11): 726-731, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-760272

ABSTRACT

It has recently been reported that some hospitals in the UK have placed a blanket restriction on the provision of maternal request caesarean sections (MRCS) as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Pregnancy and birthing services are obviously facing challenges during the current emergency, but we argue that a blanket ban on MRCS is both inappropriate and disproportionate. In this paper, we highlight the importance of MRCS for pregnant people's health and autonomy in childbirth and argue that this remains crucial during the current emergency. We consider some potential arguments-based on pregnant people's health and resource allocation-that might be considered justification for the limitation of such services. We demonstrate, however, that these arguments are not as persuasive as they might appear because there is limited evidence to indicate either that provision of MRCS is always dangerous for pregnant people in the circumstances or would be a substantial burden on a hospital's ability to respond to the pandemic. Furthermore, we argue that even if MRCS was not a service that hospitals are equipped to offer to all pregnant persons who seek it, the current circumstances cannot justify a blanket ban on an important service and due attention must be paid to individual circumstances.


Subject(s)
Cesarean Section/ethics , Decision Making/ethics , Health Care Rationing/ethics , Human Rights , Pandemics/ethics , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/prevention & control , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cesarean Section/adverse effects , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Elective Surgical Procedures/ethics , Female , Health , Hospitals , Humans , Mothers , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Autonomy , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/etiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , Pregnant Women , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom
17.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol ; 253: 133-140, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-733869

ABSTRACT

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has raised some important interrogations on minimally invasive gynaecological surgery. The International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE) has taken upon itself the task of providing guidance and best practice policies for all practicing gynaecological endoscopists. Factors affecting decision making processes in minimal invasive surgery (MIS) vary depending on factors such as the phase of the pandemic, policies on control and prevention, expertise and existing infrastructure. Our responsibility remains ensuring the safety of all health care providers, ancillary staff and patients during this unusual period. We reviewed the current literature related to gynecological and endoscopic surgery during the Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) crisis. Regarding elective surgery, universal testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection should be carried out wherever possible 40 h prior to surgery. In case of confirmed positive case of SARS-CoV-2, surgery should be delayed. Priority should be given to relatively urgent cases such as malignancies. ISGE supports medical optimization and delaying surgery for benign non-life-threatening surgeries. When possible, we recommend to perform cases by laparoscopy and to allow early discharges. Any procedure with risk of bowel involvement should be performed by open surgery as studies have found a high amount of viral RNA (ribonucleic acid) in stool. Regarding urgent surgery, each unit should create a risk assessment flow chart based on capacity. Patients should be screened for symptoms and symptomatic patients must be tested. In the event that a confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2 is found, every attempt should be made to optimize medical management and defer surgery until the patient has recovered and only emergency or life-threatening surgery should be performed in these cases. We recommend to avoid intubation and ventilation in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients and if at all possible local or regional anesthesia should be utilized. Patients who screen or test negative may have general anesthesia and laparoscopic surgery while strict protocols of infection control are upheld. Surgery in screen-positive as well as SARS-CoV-2 positive patients that cannot be safely postponed should be undertaken with full PPE with ensuring that only essential personnel are exposed. If available, negative pressure theatres should be used for patients who are positive or screen high risk. During open and vaginal procedures, suction can be used to minimize droplet and bioaerosol spread. In a patient who screens low risk or tests negative, although carrier and false negatives cannot be excluded, laparoscopy should be strongly considered. We recommend, during minimal access surgeries, to use strategies to reduce production of bioaerosols (such as minimal use of energy, experienced surgeon), to reduce leakage of smoke aerosols (for example, minimizing the number of ports used and size of incisions, as well as reducing the operating pressures) and to promote safe elimination of smoke during surgery and during the ports' closure (such as using gas filters and smoke evacuation systems). During the post-peak period of pandemic, debriefing and mental health screening for staff is recommended. Psychological support should be provided as needed. In conclusion, based on the existent evidence, ISGE largely supports the current international trends favoring laparoscopy over laparotomy on a case by case risk evaluation basis, recognizing the different levels of skill and access to minimally invasive procedures across various countries.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Endoscopy/standards , Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/standards , Infection Control/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/etiology , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Elective Surgical Procedures/standards , Female , Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Societies, Medical
18.
Surgery ; 168(4): 572-577, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-645321

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Resumption of elective surgery during the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic crisis has been debated widely and largely discouraged. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to assess the feasibility of resuming elective operations during the current and possible future peaks of this coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: We collected data during the peak of the current pandemic in the United Kingdom on adult patients who underwent elective surgery in a "COVID-19-free" hospital from April 8 to May 29, 2020. The study included patients from various surgical specialties. Nonelective and pediatric cases were excluded. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were the rate of coronavirus disease 2019 infections, new onset of pulmonary symptoms after hospitalization, and requirement for admission to the intensive care unit. RESULTS: A total of 309 consecutive adult patients were included in this study. No patients died nor required intensive care unit admission. Operations graded "Intermediate" were the most performed procedure representing 91% of the total number. One patient was diagnosed with a coronavirus disease 2019 infection after being transferred to the nearest local emergency hospital for management of postoperative pain secondary to common bile duct stone and was successfully treated conservatively on the ward. No patient developed pulmonary complications. Three patients were admitted for greater than 23 hours. Twenty-seven patients (8.7%) developed complications. Complications graded as 2 and 3 according to the Clavien-Dindo classification occurred in 14 and 2 patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: This prospective study shows that, despite the severity and high transmissibility of novel coronavirus 2 disease, COVID-19-free hospitals can represent a safe setting to resume many types of elective surgery during the peak of a pandemic.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Elective Surgical Procedures/standards , Infection Control/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Admission/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Feasibility Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Patient Selection , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...