Immediate and long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on delivery of surgical services.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing pandemic is having a collateral health effect on delivery of surgical care to millions of patients. Very little is known about pandemic management and effects on other services, including delivery of surgery. METHODS: This was a scoping review of all available literature pertaining to COVID-19 and surgery, using electronic databases, society websites, webinars and preprint repositories. RESULTS: Several perioperative guidelines have been issued within a short time. Many suggestions are contradictory and based on anecdotal data at best. As regions with the highest volume of operations per capita are being hit, an unprecedented number of operations are being cancelled or deferred. No major stakeholder seems to have considered how a pandemic deprives patients with a surgical condition of resources, with patients disproportionally affected owing to the nature of treatment (use of anaesthesia, operating rooms, protective equipment, physical invasion and need for perioperative care). No recommendations exist regarding how to reopen surgical delivery. The postpandemic evaluation and future planning should involve surgical services as an essential part to maintain appropriate surgical care for the population during an outbreak. Surgical delivery, owing to its cross-cutting nature and synergistic effects on health systems at large, needs to be built into the WHO agenda for national health planning. CONCLUSION: Patients are being deprived of surgical access, with uncertain loss of function and risk of adverse prognosis as a collateral effect of the pandemic. Surgical services need a contingency plan for maintaining surgical care in an ongoing or postpandemic phase.

ANTECEDENTES: La pandemia en curso tiene un efecto colateral sobre la salud en la prestación de atención quirúrgica a millones de pacientes. Se sabe muy poco sobre el manejo de la pandemia y sus efectos colaterales en otros servicios, incluida la prestación de servicios quirúrgicos. MÉTODOS: Se ha realizado una revisión de alcance de toda la literatura disponible relacionada con COVID-19 y cirugía utilizando bases de datos electrónicas, páginas web de sociedades, seminarios online y repositorios de pre-publicaciones. RESULTADOS: Se han publicado varias guías perioperatorias en un corto período de tiempo. Muchas recomendaciones son contradictorias y, en el mejor de los casos, se basan en datos anecdóticos. A medida que las regiones con el mayor volumen de operaciones per cápita se ven afectadas, se cancela o difiere un número sin precedentes de operaciones. Ninguna de las principales partes interesadas parece haber considerado cómo una pandemia priva de recursos a los pacientes que necesitan una intervención quirúrgica, con pacientes afectados de manera desproporcionada debido a la naturaleza del tratamiento (uso de anestesia, quirófanos, equipo de protección, contacto físico y necesidad de atención perioperatoria). No existen recomendaciones sobre cómo reanudar la actividad quirúrgica. La evaluación tras la pandemia y la planificación futura deben incluir a los servicios quirúrgicos como una parte esencial para mantener la atención quirúrgica adecuada para la población también durante un brote epidémico. La prestación de servicios quirúrgicos, debido a su naturaleza transversal y a sus efectos sinérgicos en los sistemas de salud en general, debe incorporarse a la agenda de la OMS para la planificación nacional de la salud. CONCLUSIÓN: Los pacientes se ven privados de acceso a la cirugía con una pérdida de función incierta y riesgo de un pronóstico adverso como efecto colateral de la pandemia. Los servicios quirúrgicos necesitan un plan de contingencia para mantener la atención quirúrgica durante la pandemia y en la fase post-pandemia.

Propensity score-matched comparison of oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatic resection.

BACKGROUND: Selected studies have reported improved outcomes in laparoscopic compared with open distal pancreatic resection. Concerns regarding failure to achieve proper oncological resection and compromised long-term outcomes remain. This study investigated whether postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are comparable to those after an open procedure. METHODS: This retrospective case-control study included patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2013, identified from the National Cancer Database. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1 : 1 matching was performed between patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy based on all relevant co-variables. The primary outcome was overall survival. RESULTS: Of 1947 eligible patients, 605 (31·1 per cent) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. After propensity score matching, two well balanced groups of 563 patients each were analysed. There was no difference in overall survival at 3 years after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (41·6 versus 36·0 per cent; hazard ratio 0·93, 95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·12; P = 0·457). The overall conversion rate was 27·3 per cent (165 of 605). Patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had outcomes comparable to those of patients who had an open procedure with regard to median time to chemotherapy (50 versus 50 days; P = 0·342), median number of nodes examined (12 versus 12; P = 0·759); 30-day mortality (1·2 versus 0·9 per cent; P = 0·562); 90-day mortality (2·8 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·403), 30-day readmission rate (9·6 versus 9·2 per cent; P = 0·838) and positive margin rate (14·9 versus 18·5 per cent; P = 0·110). However, median duration of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 versus 7 days; P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable alternative to open distal pancreatectomy with no detriment to survival.