Surgical challenges and research priorities in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic: EAES membership survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems and general surgeons are being challenged by the current pandemic. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) aimed to evaluate surgeons' experiences and perspectives, to identify gaps in knowledge, to record shortcomings in resources and to register research priorities. METHODS: An ad hoc web-based survey of EAES members and affiliates was developed by the EAES Research Committee. The questionnaire consisted of 69 items divided into the following sections: (Ι) demographics, (II) institutional burdens and management strategies, and (III) analysis of resource, knowledge, and evidence gaps. Descriptive statistics were summarized as frequencies, medians, ranges,, and interquartile ranges, as appropriate. RESULTS: The survey took place between March 25th and April 16th with a total of 550 surgeons from 79 countries. Eighty-one percent had to postpone elective cases or suspend their practice and 35% assumed roles not related to their primary expertise. One-fourth of respondents reported having encountered abdominal pathologies in COVID-19-positive patients, most frequently acute appendicitis (47% of respondents). The effect of protective measures in surgical or endoscopic procedures on infected patients, the effect of endoscopic surgery on infected patients, and the infectivity of positive patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery were prioritized as knowledge gaps and research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Perspectives and priorities of EAES members in the era of the pandemic are hereto summarized. Research evidence is urgently needed to effectively respond to challenges arisen from the pandemic.

Impact of COVID-19 on the oncological outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery in northern Italy in 2019 and 2020: multicentre comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study compared patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery in 20 hospitals of northern Italy in 2019 versus 2020, in order to evaluate whether COVID-19-related delays of colorectal cancer screening resulted in more advanced cancers at diagnosis and worse clinical outcomes. METHOD: This was a retrospective multicentre cohort analysis of patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery in March to December 2019 versus March to December 2020. Independent predictors of disease stage (oncological stage, associated symptoms, clinical T4 stage, metastasis) and outcome (surgical complications, palliative surgery, 30-day death) were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 1755 patients operated in 2019, and 1481 in 2020 (both mean age 69.6 years). The proportion of cancers with symptoms, clinical T4 stage, liver and lung metastases in 2019 and 2020 were respectively: 80.8 versus 84.5 per cent; 6.2 versus 8.7 per cent; 10.2 versus 10.3 per cent; and 3.0 versus 4.4 per cent. The proportions of surgical complications, palliative surgery and death in 2019 and 2020 were, respectively: 34.4 versus 31.9 per cent; 5.0 versus 7.5 per cent; and 1.7 versus 2.4 per cent. Cancers in 2020 (versus 2019) were more likely to be symptomatic (odds ratio 1.36 (95 per cent c.i. 1.09 to 1.69)), clinical T4 stage (odds ratio 1.38 (95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 1.85)) and have multiple liver metastases (odds ratio 2.21 (95 per cent c.i. 1.24 to 3.94)), but were not more likely to be associated with surgical complications (odds ratio 0.79 (95 per cent c.i. 0.68 to 0.93)). CONCLUSION: Colorectal cancer patients who had surgery between March and December 2020 had an increased risk of advanced disease in terms of associated symptoms, cancer location, clinical T4 stage and number of liver metastases.

Smoke Evacuation During Laparoscopic Surgery: A Problem Beyond the COVID-19 Period. A Quantitative Analysis of CO2 Environmental Dispersion Using Different Devices.

Background. The COVID-19 pandemic leads to several debates regarding the possible risk for healthcare professionals during surgery. SAGES and EAES raised the issue of the transmission of infection through the surgical smoke during laparoscopy. They recommended the use of smoke evacuation devices (SEDs) with CO2 filtering systems. The aim of the present study is to compare the efficacy of different SEDs evaluating the CO2 environmental dispersion in the operating theater. Methods. We prospectively evaluated the data of 4 group of patients on which we used different SEDs or standard trocars: AIRSEAL system (S1 group), a homemade device (S2 group), an AIRSEAL system + homemade device (S3 group), and with standard trocars and without SED (S4 group). Quantitative analysis of CO2 environmental dispersion was carried out associated to the following data in order to evaluate the pneumoperitoneum variations: a preset insufflation pressure, real intraoperative pneumoperitoneum pressure, operative time, total volume of insufflated CO2, and flow rate index. Results. 16 patients were prospectively enrolled. The [CO2] mean value was 711 ppm, 641 ppm, 593 ppm, and 761 ppm in S1, S2, S3, and S4 groups, respectively. The comparison between data of all groups showed statistically significant differences in the measured ambient CO2 concentration. Conclusion. All tested SEDs seem to be useful to reduce the CO2 environmental dispersion respect to the use of standard trocars. The association of AIRSEAL system and a homemade device seems to be the best solution combining an adequate smoke evacuation and a stable pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery.

Acute cholecystitis during COVID-19 pandemic: a multisocietary position statement.

Following the spread of the infection from the new SARS-CoV2 coronavirus in March 2020, several surgical societies have released their recommendations to manage the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for the daily clinical practice. The recommendations on emergency surgery have fueled a debate among surgeons on an international level.We maintain that laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains the treatment of choice for acute cholecystitis, even in the COVID-19 era. Moreover, since laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not more likely to spread the COVID-19 infection than open cholecystectomy, it must be organized in such a way as to be carried out safely even in the present situation, to guarantee the patient with the best outcomes that minimally invasive surgery has shown to have.

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

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