Effect of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns on planned cancer surgery for 15 tumour types in 61 countries : an international, prospective, cohort study

Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restrictions. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (>= 18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10middot0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0middot6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5middot5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0middot81, 95% CI 0middot77-0middot84; p Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research. Copyright (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.Peer reviewe

High complication rate in Crohn's disease surgery following percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal abscess: a multicentre study

Intra-abdominal abscesses complicating Crohn's disease (CD) present an additional challenge as their presence can contraindicate immunosuppressive treatment whilst emergency surgery is associated with high stoma rate and complications. Treatment options include a conservative approach, percutaneous drainage, and surgical intervention. The current multicentre study audited the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent preoperative radiological drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses up to 6 weeks prior to surgery for ileocolonic CD

Head and neck cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international, multicenter, observational cohort study

Background: The aims of this study were to provide data on the safety of head and neck cancer surgery currently being undertaken during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This international, observational cohort study comprised 1137 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer undergoing primary surgery with curative intent in 26 countries. Factors associated with severe pulmonary complications in COVID-19–positive patients and infections in the surgical team were determined by univariate analysis. Results: Among the 1137 patients, the commonest sites were the oral cavity (38%) and the thyroid (21%). For oropharynx and larynx tumors, nonsurgical therapy was favored in most cases. There was evidence of surgical de-escalation of neck management and reconstruction. Overall 30-day mortality was 1.2%. Twenty-nine patients (3%) tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within 30 days of surgery; 13 of these patients (44.8%) developed severe respiratory complications, and 3.51 (10.3%) died. There were significant correlations with an advanced tumor stage and admission to critical care. Members of the surgical team tested positive within 30 days of surgery in 40 cases (3%). There were significant associations with operations in which the patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 30 days, with a high community incidence of SARS-CoV-2, with screened patients, with oral tumor sites, and with tracheostomy. Conclusions: Head and neck cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era appears safe even when surgery is prolonged and complex. The overlap in COVID-19 between patients and members of the surgical team raises the suspicion of failures in cross-infection measures or the use of personal protective equipment. Lay Summary: Head and neck surgery is safe for patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic even when it is lengthy and complex. This is significant because concerns over patient safety raised in many guidelines appear not to be reflected by outcomes, even for those who have other serious illnesses or require complex reconstructions. Patients subjected to suboptimal or nonstandard treatments should be carefully followed up to optimize their cancer outcomes. The overlap between patients and surgeons testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is notable and emphasizes the need for fastidious cross-infection controls and effective personal protective equipment

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Correction to: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) position statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): general principles of IBD management

: The affiliation of the author Silvio Danese has been incorrectly published in the original publication. The complete correct affiliation should read as follows

Results, outcome predictors, and complications after Stapled transanal Rectal Resection for obstructed defecation.

Abstract: Objective There is no objective means to assess the obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS), to allow evaluation of outcome or to compare the efficacy of treatment including surgery. The study aimed to validate a disease-specific index to quantify severity to allow assessment of the results of treatment in clinical trials, to permit comparison between them. Method Seventy-six patients with ODS and 30 healthy controls entered the study after proctologic and ano-rectal physiological investigation. Hirschsprung's disease and slow transit constipation were excluded. An eight-item questionnaire with four or five possible answers was administered by two independent researchers at two different times. The ODS score was the sum of all points with a maximum possible of 31 points. Agreement between the two operators was evaluated by the Kappa coefficient for each single item. The coefficient of repeatability (CR) was assessed by the Bland and Altman plot. The internal consistency was evaluated by the Crohnbach-alpha test. A cluster analysis was carried out on each clinical finding. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare median ODS score between patients and controls. Results The ODS score of the two operators was normally distributed and strongly correlated (r = 0.89). The correlation coefficient between the score assigned to each item by two operators ranged from 0.79 to 0.98. The degree of agreement between the operators was good and the two methods were reproducible (CR = 3.13). There was a significant difference between the mean ODS score for patients and controls (t = 20.70, P < 0.001). The Crohnbach alpha value for internal reliability was +0.513. Cluster analysis showed a different profile between cluster 1 (a nonhomogenous group including rectocoele, intussusception or perineal descent), and cluster 2 (pelvic dysynergia). Conclusion The ODS score offers a validated severity of disease index in grading the severity of disease and monitoring the efficacy of therapy