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

Surgical smoke: a matter of hygiene, toxicology, and occupational health

The use of devices for tissue dissection and hemostasis during surgery is almost unavoidable. Electrically powered devices such as electrocautery, ultrasonic and laser units produce surgical smoke containing more than a thousand different products of combustion. These include large amounts of carcinogenic, mutagenic and potentially teratogenic noxae. The smoke contains particles that range widely in size, even as small as 0.007 µm. Most of the particles (90%) in electrocautery smoke are ≤6.27 µm in size, but surgical masks cannot filter particles smaller than 5 µm. In this situation, 95% of the smoke particles which pass through the mask reach deep into the respiratory tract and frequently cause various symptoms, such as headache, dizziness, nausea, eye and respiratory tract irritation, weakness, and abdominal pain in the acute period. The smoke can transport bacteria and viruses that are mostly between 0.02 µm and 3 µm in size and there is a risk of contamination. Among these viruses, SARS-CoV-2, influenza virus, HIV, HPV, HBV must be considered. The smoke may also carry malignant cells. The long-term effects of the surgical smoke are always ignored, because causality can hardly be clarified in individual cases. The quantity of the smoke changes with the technique of the surgeon, the room ventilation system, the characteristics of the power device used, the energy level at which it is set, and the characteristics of the tissue processed. The surgical team is highly exposed to the smoke, with the surgeon experiencing the highest exposure. However, the severity of exposure differs according to certain factors, e.g., ventilation by laminar or turbulent mixed airflow or smoke evacuation system. In any case, the surgical smoke must be removed from the operation area. The most effective method is to collect the smoke from the source through an aspiration system and to evacuate it outside. Awareness and legal regulations in terms of hygiene, toxicology, as well as occupational health and safety should increase.

Synergic evacuation device helps smoke control during endoscopic thyroid surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical plumes in small cavities, such as transoral endoscopic thyroid surgery, have never been satisfactorily resolved. We aimed to study the use of a smoke evacuation system and evaluate its efficacy, including the field of view and operating time.

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively reviewed 327 consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic thyroidectomy. They were separated into 2 groups based on whether the smoke evacuation system was used. To reduce the possible experience bias, only patients 4 months before and after implementing the evacuation system were included. Recorded endoscopic videos were evaluated, including the field of view, the incidence of scope clearance, and time spent during air-pocket creation.

RESULTS

Overall, there were 64 patients with a median age of 43.59 years and a median body mass index of 22.87 kg/m², including 54 women, 21 thyroid cancers, and 61 hemithyroidectomies. The operative duration was comparable between the groups. The group where the evacuation system was used scored more as good in terms of endoscopic views (8/32, 25% vs 1/32, 3.13%, P = .01), fewer incidences of endoscope lens pull out for clearance (3.5 vs 6.0 times, P < .01), less time for clear view after energy device activation (2.67 vs 5.00 seconds, P < .01), and less time spent (8.67 vs 12.38 minutes, P < .01) during air-pocket creation.

CONCLUSION

In conjunction with the synergy function of energy devices, evacuators enhance the field of view and optimize the time spent in the real clinical setting of low-pressure and small-space endoscopic thyroid procedures, in addition to the benefit of reducing smoke harm.

Existence of SARS-Cov-2 in the Peritoneal Fluid

OBJECTIVE

 To determine the existence of SARS-CoV-2 in the peritoneal fluid to assess the risk of exposure through surgical smoke and aerosolization threatening healthcare workers during abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND

 SARS-CoV-2 is a respiratory virus and possible ways of viral transmission are respiratory droplets, close contact, and fecal-oral route. Surgeries pose risk for healthcare workers due to the close contact with patients. Aerosolized particles may be inhaled via the leaked CO₂ during laparoscopic procedures and surgical smoke produced by electrocautery.

METHODS

 All the data of 8 patients, who were tested positive for COVID-19, were collected between August 31, 2020 and April 30, 2021. Recorded clinicopathologic data included age, symptoms, radiological and laboratory findings, antiviral treatment before surgery, type of surgery and existence of the virus in the peritoneal fluid. Nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR was used for the diagnosis. COVID-19 existence in the peritoneal fluid was determined by RT-PCR test as well.

RESULTS

 All 8 COVID-19 positive patients were pregnant, and surgeries were cesarean sections. 1 of the 8 patients was febrile during surgery. Also only 1 patient had pulmonary radiological findings specifically indicating COVID-19 infection. Laboratory findings were as follows: 4 of 8 had lymphopenia and all had elevated D-dimer levels. Peritoneal and amniotic fluid samples of all patients were negative for SARS-CoV-2.

CONCLUSION

 SARS-CoV-2 exposure due to aerosolization or surgical fumes does not seem to be likely, provided the necessary precautions are taken.

The COVID - AGICT study: COVID-19 and advanced gastro-intestinal cancer surgical treatment. A multicentric Italian study on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic impact on gastro-intestinal cancers surgical treatment during the 2020. Analysis of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

This Italian multicentric retrospective study aimed to investigate the possible changes in outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

Our primary endpoint was to determine whether the pandemic scenario increased the rate of patients with colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers resected at an advanced stage in 2020 compared to 2019. Considering different cancer staging systems, we divided tumors into early stages and advanced stages, using pathological outcomes. Furthermore, to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical outcomes, perioperative data of both 2020 and 2019 were also examined.

RESULTS

Overall, a total of 8250 patients, 4370 (53%) and 3880 (47%) were surgically treated during 2019 and 2020 respectively, in 62 Italian surgical Units. In 2020, the rate of patients treated with an advanced pathological stage was not different compared to 2019 (P = 0.25). Nevertheless, the analysis of quarters revealed that in the second half of 2020 the rate of advanced cancer resected, tented to be higher compared with the same months of 2019 (P = 0.05). During the pandemic year 'Charlson Comorbidity Index score of cancer patients (5.38 ± 2.08 vs 5.28 ± 2.22, P = 0.036), neoadjuvant treatments (23.9% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.001), rate of urgent diagnosis (24.2% vs 20.3%, P < 0.001), colorectal cancer urgent resection (9.4% vs. 7.37, P < 0.001), and the rate of positive nodes on the total nodes resected per surgery increased significantly (7 vs 9% - 2.02 ± 4.21 vs 2.39 ± 5.23, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic did not influence the pathological stage of colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers at the time of surgery, our study revealed that the pandemic scenario negatively impacted on several perioperative and post-operative outcomes.

Genetic Load of SARS-CoV-2 in Aerosols Collected in Operating Theaters

After the outbreak of COVID-19, additional protocols have been established to prevent the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 from the patient to the health personnel and vice versa in health care settings. However, in the case of emergency surgeries, it is not always possible to ensure that the patient is not infected with SARS-CoV-2, assuming a potential source of transmission of the virus to health personnel. This work aimed to evaluate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 and quantify the viral load in indoor air samples collected inside operating rooms, where emergency and scheduled operations take place. Samples were collected for 3 weeks inside two operating rooms for 24 h at 38 L/min in quartz filters. RNA was extracted from the filters and analyzed using RT-qPCR targeting SARS-CoV-2 genes E, N1 and N2 regions. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 11.3% of aerosol samples collected in operating rooms, despite with low concentrations (not detected at 13.5 cg/m3 and 10.5 cg/m3 in the scheduled and emergency operating rooms, respectively). Potential sources of airborne SARS-CoV-2 could be aerosolization of the virus during aerosol-generating procedures and in open surgery from patients that might have been recently infected with the virus, despite presenting a negative COVID-19 test. Another source could be related to health care workers unknowingly infected with the virus and exhaling SARS-CoV-2 virions into the air. These results highlight the importance of reinforcing preventive measures against COVID-19 in operating rooms, such as the correct use of protective equipment, screening programs for health care workers, and information campaigns. IMPORTANCE Operating rooms are critical environments in which asepsis must be ensured. The COVID-19 pandemic entailed the implementation of additional preventative measures in health care settings, including operating theaters. Although one of the measures is to operate only COVID-19 free patients, this measure cannot be always implemented, especially in emergency interventions. Therefore, a surveillance campaign was conducted during 3 weeks in two operating rooms to assess the level of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material detected in operating theaters with the aim to assess the risk of COVID-19 transmission during operating procedures. SARS-CoV-2 genetic material was detected in 11% of aerosol samples collected in operating rooms, despite with low concentrations. Plausible SARS-CoV-2 sources have been discussed, including patients and health care personnel infected with the virus. These results highlight the importance of reinforcing preventive measures against COVID-19 in operating rooms, such as the correct use of protective equipment, screening programs for health care workers and information campaigns.

Safe Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) has had an enormous impact on all aspects of healthcare, but its effect on patients needing surgery and surgeons has been disproportionate. In this review, we aim to understand the impact of the pandemic on surgical patients and teams. We compiled the emerging data on pre-operative screening methods, vaccinations, safe-surgery pathways and surgical techniques and make recommendations for evidence-based safe-surgical pathways. We also present surgical outcomes for emergency, oncological and benign surgery in the context of the pandemic. Finally, we attempt to address the impact of the pandemic on patients, staff and surgical training and provide perspectives for the future.

RECENT FINDINGS

Surgical teams have developed consensus guidelines and established research priorities and safety precautions for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence supports that surgery in patients with a peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection carries substantial risks, but risk mitigation strategies are effective at reducing harm to staff and patients. Surgery has increased risk for patients and staff, but this can be mitigated effectively, especially for elective surgery. Elective surgery can be safely performed during the COVID-19 pandemic employing the strategies discussed in this review.

Academic surgery amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A perspective of the present and future challenges

This narrative review describes the trials and tribulations of academic surgeons in four major cities of their respective countries and the solutions they retained to keep academia alive in their practice. The four pillars of an "academic surgeon" _teaching, producing scientific works presented in meetings, publications and research_ are dealt with bearing in mind the modifications brought about by the pandemic and the solutions to keep academia active. Throughout the pandemic, the ultimate goal has been and will be to improve care and train the next generation of surgeons and encourage and monitor researchers, guide the mentees through the tasks of leadership, and foster good sound presentations at scientific meetings and encourage innovative and fruitful publications. The pros and cons of the alternatives imposed by the pandemic for the above-mentioned academic components, based on the literature, are reviewed and analyzed as they are taking place today in Shanghai, Milan, Graz, TaiChung and Hsinchu. Our perspective for the future is that teaching will take a new aspect and make wide use of electronic platforms, but also, the face-to-face modality will surface again. According to local needs and funding, many will most likely choose the hybrid solution (electronic and presential). Production of scientific works in meetings has gained momentum, again with the hybrid solution being preferred. Scientific publications have already increased on topics that are no longer related to COVID-19, and both clinical and experimental research are flourishing. This review can provide insight to guide young and accomplished academic surgeons through these difficult times and beyond, promoting a renaissance of clinical research and relevant publications, teaching of surgery and scientific meetings with a hybrid approach, and, finally, contribute to the training and formation of a new generation of surgeons for the future post-COVID-19 era.

Maintaining a minimally invasive surgical service during a pandemic

PURPOSE

The safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was questioned in the COVID-19 pandemic due to concern regarding disease spread. We continued MIS during the pandemic with appropriate protective measures. This study aims to assess the safety of MIS compared to Open Surgery (OS) in this setting.

METHODS

Operations performed during 2020 lockdown were compared with operations from the same time-period in 2019 and 2021. Outcomes reviewed included all complications, respiratory complications, length of stay (LOS) and operating surgeon COVID-19 infections (OSI).

RESULTS

In 2020, MIS comprised 52% of procedures. 29% of MIS 2020 had complications (2019: 24%, 2021: 15%; p = 0.08) vs 47% in OS 2020 (p = 0.04 vs MIS). 8.5% of MIS 2020 had respiratory complications (2019: 7.7%, 2021: 6.9%; p = 0.9) vs 10.5% in OS 2020 (p = 0.8 vs MIS). Median LOS[IQR] for MIS 2020 was 2.5[6] days vs 5[23] days in OS 2020 (p = 0.06). In 2020, 2 patients (1.2%) were COVID-19 positive (MIS: 1, OS: 1) and there were no OSI.

CONCLUSION

Despite extensive use of MIS during the pandemic, there was no associated increase in respiratory or other complications, and no OSI. Our study suggests that, with appropriate protective measures, MIS can be performed safely despite high levels of COVID-19 in the population.

COVID-19 pandemic: is it time for shared surgical guidelines? A systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The recent COrona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused a massive disruption of surgical activity and after a year from its first outbreak surgeons still struggle to keep their regular activity coexisting with the virus exhausting requests of healthcare resources. The aim of this paper is to offer a comprehensive overview of the most important recommendations by the International Guidelines about general surgery, and possibly to invite building common shared guidelines to preserve the potential to provide surgical assistance despite the pandemic.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were searched.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The searches revealed a total of 18579 articles published up to the end of February 2021. Five articles published between March and May 2020, were included in the present study: Guidelines from The European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES), The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and The European Association for Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES), The Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgeons of Asia (ELSA), The European Hernia Society (EHS) and The International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IOS-IBD).

CONCLUSIONS

In the likely scenario that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will become an endemic chronic problem, we should not be forced to choose between COVID-19 or surgery in the future and find a way to make both coexisting.

The effect of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on sphincter preserving surgery for rectal cancer: A single referral center experience

Background

COVID-19 has significantly impacted healthcare worldwide. Lack of screening and limited access to healthcare has delayed diagnosis and treatment of various malignancies. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on sphincter-preserving surgery in patients with rectal cancer.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective study of patients undergoing surgery for newly diagnosed rectal cancer. Patients operated on during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020–February 2021) comprised the study group (COVID-19 era), while patients operated on prior to the pandemic (March 2016–February 2020) served as the control group (pre–COVID-19).

Results

This study included 234 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer; 180 (77%) patients in the pre–COVID-19 group and 54 patients (23%) in the COVID-19–era group. There were no differences between the groups in terms of mean patient age, sex, or body mass index. The COVID-19–era group presented with a significantly higher rate of locally advanced disease (stage T3/T4 79% vs 58%; P = .02) and metastatic disease (9% vs 3%; P = .05). The COVID-19–era group also had a much higher percentage of patients treated with total neoadjuvant therapy (52% vs 15%; P = .001) and showed a significantly lower rate of sphincter-preserving surgery (73% vs 86%; P = .028). Time from diagnosis to surgery in this group was also significantly longer (median 272 vs 146 days; P < .0001).

Conclusion

Patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic presented later and at a more advanced stage. They were more likely to be treated with total neoadjuvant therapy and were less likely candidates for sphincter-preserving surgery.

Minimally invasive surgery in India during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed an unprecedented challenge to the healthcare systems worldwide. This uncharted territory has changed the practices in modern healthcare delivery; this is particularly true in the case of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) where various changes are being adopted. This survey was conducted to determine the impact of the pandemic and the changes being adopted in the field of MIS, from a resource-limited developing country, India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The survey was carried out from 27 July to 22 August 2020, amongst MIS surgeons in India using an online questionnaire generated on Google Forms.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 251 MIS surgeons nationwide. There was a proportional reduction of overall elective surgeries and MIS. Approximately 30% of the surgeons continued to use MIS, as during the pre-pandemic era. Pre-operative tests for COVID-19 (96.1%) and personal protective equipment (PPE, 66%-86%), including respirators (95.2%), are used uniformly across the nation. Almost half (43.1%) of the MIS surgeons are using ≥6 recommended intraoperative modifications in MIS to mitigate the COVID-19 transmission.

CONCLUSION

MIS surgeons in India have adapted within a short time to the challenge of the pandemic by embracing pre-operative testing, PPE and new techniques/technologies to continue patient care. Innovations and low-cost indigenous customisations are the need of the hour for a developing country like India. Further studies are required to establish the true risk of viral transmission involved in MIS and the efficacies of the techniques/devices to reduce the spread of the virus.

The AEROsolization of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): Phase I

Introduction

The degree to which Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is aerosolized has yet to be determined. The aim of this study is to prove methods of detection of aerosolization of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients in anticipation of testing for aerosolization in procedural and operative settings.

Methods

In this prospective study, inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 were identified. Demographic information was obtained, and a symptom questionnaire was completed. Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filters, which were attached to an air pump, were used to detect viral aerosolization and placed in four locations in each patient’s room. The filters were left in the rooms for a three-hour period.

Results

There were 10 patients who enrolled in the study, none of whom were vaccinated. Only two patients were more than a week from the onset of symptoms, and half of the patients received treatment for COVID with antivirals and steroids. Among ten RT-PCR positive and hospitalized patients, and four filters per patient, there was only one positive SARS-CoV-2 aerosol sample, and it was directly attached to one of the patients. Overall, there was no correlation between symptoms or symptom onset and aerosolized test result.

Conclusions

The results of this suggest that there is limited aerosolization of SARS-CoV-2 and provided proof of concept for this filter sampling technique. Further studies with increased sample size should be performed in a procedural and operative setting to provide more information about SARS-CoV-2 aerosolization.

State-of-the-Art and Projected Developments of Nanofiber Filter Material for Face Mask Against COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The Covid-19 epidemic was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. It is difficult to foresee the future length and severity; it may extend to weeks, months, or even years to deplete the energy and resources of the health care facilities and the providers as there is marginal to no pharmacological medication available to treat the Covid-19. Unless an effective pharmacological treatment such as medicines and vaccines is developed and released publicly, wearing protective face masks and protecting personal health and hygiene is merely a choice to avoid the Covid-19 spread. This review summarizes the background knowledge on the Covid-19 disease and currently available face masks for highly infectious disease primary prevention. According to recent studies of Covid-19 prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, nanotechnologists have provided a revolutionary approach that involves both pharmacological and non-pharmacological steps, one of which is the use of nanofibers in facemasks and respirators.

METHODS

Various researches carried out in the field of nanomask and patented reports based on the application of nanomask were reviewed.

CONCLUSION

The most recent developments of nanofibers, including research publications, patents and commercial products in Covid-19 prevention, are extensively reviewed from scientific literature and appropriately represented in this study.

Evolving Trends in the Management of Acute Appendicitis During COVID-19 Waves: The ACIE Appy II Study

BACKGROUND

In 2020, ACIE Appy study showed that COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) worldwide, with an increased rate of non-operative management (NOM) strategies and a trend toward open surgery due to concern of virus transmission by laparoscopy and controversial recommendations on this issue. The aim of this study was to survey again the same group of surgeons to assess if any difference in management attitudes of AA had occurred in the later stages of the outbreak.

METHODS

From August 15 to September 30, 2021, an online questionnaire was sent to all 709 participants of the ACIE Appy study. The questionnaire included questions on personal protective equipment (PPE), local policies and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, NOM, surgical approach and disease presentations in 2021. The results were compared with the results from the previous study.

RESULTS

A total of 476 answers were collected (response rate 67.1%). Screening policies were significatively improved with most patients screened regardless of symptoms (89.5% vs. 37.4%) with PCR and antigenic test as the preferred test (74.1% vs. 26.3%). More patients tested positive before surgery and commercial systems were the preferred ones to filter smoke plumes during laparoscopy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was the first option in the treatment of AA, with a declined use of NOM.

CONCLUSION

Management of AA has improved in the last waves of pandemic. Increased evidence regarding SARS-COV-2 infection along with a timely healthcare systems response has been translated into tailored attitudes and a better care for patients with AA worldwide.

Presentation and outcomes of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned from the Middle East-a multicentre prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had a striking impact on healthcare services in the world. The present study aimed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the presentation management and outcomes of acute appendicitis (AA) in different centers in the Middle East.

METHODS

This multicenter cohort study compared the presentation and outcomes of patients with AA who presented during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to patients who presented before the onset of the pandemic. Demographic data, clinical presentation, management strategy, and outcomes were prospectively collected and compared.

RESULTS

Seven hundred seventy-one patients presented with AA during the COVID pandemic versus 1174 in the pre-COVID period. Delayed and complex presentation of AA was significantly more observed during the pandemic period. Seventy-six percent of patients underwent CT scanning to confirm the diagnosis of AA during the pandemic period, compared to 62.7% in the pre-COVID period. Non-operative management (NOM) was more frequently employed in the pandemic period. Postoperative complications were higher amid the pandemic as compared to before its onset. Reoperation and readmission rates were significantly higher in the COVID period, whereas the negative appendicectomy rate was significantly lower in the pandemic period (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a remarkable decrease in the number of patients with AA was seen along with a higher incidence of complex AA, greater use of CT scanning, and more application of NOM. The rates of postoperative complications, reoperation, and readmission were significantly higher during the COVID period.

Laparoscopic surgery produced less surgical smoke and contamination comparing with open surgery: the pilot study in fresh cadaveric experiment in COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The SARS-CoV2 virus has been identified in abdominal cavity of the COVID-19 patients. Therefore, the potential viral transmission from any surgical created smoke in these patients is of concern especially in laparoscopic surgery. This study aimed to compare the amount of surgical smoke and surgical field contamination between laparoscopic and open surgery in fresh cadavers.

Methods

Cholecystectomy in 12 cadavers was performed and they were divided into 4 groups: laparoscopic approach with or without smoke evacuator, and open approach with or without smoke evacuator. The increased particle counts in surgical smoke of each group were analyzed. In the model of appendectomy, surgical field contamination under ultraviolet light and visual contamination scale between laparoscopic and open approach were compared.

Results

Open cholecystectomy significantly produced a greater amount of overall particle sizes, particle sizes < 5 μm and particle sizes ≥ 5 μm than laparoscopic cholecystectomy (10,307 × 10³ vs 3738 × 10³, 10,226 × 10³ vs 3685 × 10³ and 81 × 10³ vs 53 × 10³ count/m³, respectively at p < 0.05). The use of smoke evacuator led to decrease in the amount of overall particle sizes of 58% and 32.4% in the open and laparoscopic chelecystectomy respectively. Median (interquatile range) visual contamination scale of surgical field in open appendectomy [3.50 (2.33, 4.67)] was significantly greater than laparoscopic appendectomy [1.50 (0.67, 2.33)] at p < 0.001.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy yielded less smoke-related particles than open cholecystectomy. The use of smoke evacuator, abeit non-significantly, reduced the particles in both open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic appendectomy had a lower degree of surgical field contamination than the open approach.

Appendectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: a multicenter ambispective cohort study by the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies (the CRAC study)

Major surgical societies advised using non-operative management of appendicitis and suggested against laparoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The hypothesis is that a significant reduction in the number of emergent appendectomies was observed during the pandemic, restricted to complex cases. The study aimed to analyse emergent surgical appendectomies during pandemic on a national basis and compare it to the same period of the previous year. This is a multicentre, retrospective, observational study investigating the outcomes of patients undergoing emergent appendectomy in March-April 2019 vs March-April 2020. The primary outcome was the number of appendectomies performed, classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) score. Secondary outcomes were the type of surgical technique employed (laparoscopic vs open) and the complication rates. One thousand five hundred forty one patients with acute appendicitis underwent surgery during the two study periods. 1337 (86.8%) patients met the inclusion criteria: 546 (40.8%) patients underwent surgery for acute appendicitis in 2020 and 791 (59.2%) in 2019. According to AAST, patients with complicated appendicitis operated in 2019 were 30.3% vs 39.9% in 2020 (p = 0.001). We observed an increase in the number of post-operative complications in 2020 (15.9%) compared to 2019 (9.6%) (p < 0.001). The following determinants increased the likelihood of complication occurrence: undergoing surgery during 2020 (+ 67%), the increase of a unit in the AAST score (+ 26%), surgery performed > 24 h after admission (+ 58%), open surgery (+ 112%) and conversion to open surgery (+ 166%). In Italian hospitals, in March and April 2020, the number of appendectomies has drastically dropped. During the first pandemic wave, patients undergoing surgery were more frequently affected by more severe appendicitis than the previous year's timeframe and experienced a higher number of complications. Trial registration number and date: Research Registry ID 5789, May 7th, 2020.

Absence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Peritoneal Fluid During Surgery in Pregnant Women Who Are COVID-19 Positive

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection poses significant risks during surgical interventions. We investigated the intraperitoneal presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in patients who are COVID-19 positive.

DESIGN

A prospective group study.

SETTING

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology designated for patients with COVID-19, Central Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of Interior, Warsaw.

PATIENTS

Overall, 65 pregnant women with COVID-19 infection underwent cesarian section. The diagnosis was confirmed either by positive antigen test or by positive reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay performed within no more than 13 days before the operation.

INTERVENTIONS

On the day of the operation, a nasopharyngeal swab was taken, and peritoneal fluid was collected at the beginning of the operation. Both the nasopharyngeal swab and peritoneal fluid samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 65 pregnant women with COVID-19 infection were enrolled in the study. The SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid test by nasopharyngeal swab produced positive results in 34 patients. In this group as well as in 31 nonconfirmed patients, all peritoneal fluid samples tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest a low risk of COVID-19 transmission from the peritoneal cavity at the time of laparoscopy or laparotomy.

Clearing the air on surgical plume

BACKGROUND

Surgical smoke or plume is produced by a variety of surgical coagulators and dissectors. A number of jurisdictions have recently introduced policies to reduce the associated occupational health risks including WorkSafe Victoria and New South Wales Health.

METHOD

This paper is a narrative review of potential risks, including any associated with COVID-19, and options for mitigation.

RESULTS

Surgical smoke or plume contains potentially toxic chemicals, some of which are carcinogens. Plume may also contain live virus, notably Human Papilloma and Hepatitis B, though any possible viral transmission is limited to a few case reports. Despite identifying COVID-19 ribonucleic acid fragments in various body tissues and fluids there are no current reports of COVID-19 transmission. Although plume is rapidly removed from the atmosphere in modern operating rooms, it is still inhaled by the operative team. Mitigation should include ensuring diathermy devices have evacuators while plume extraction should be standard for laparoscopic procedures. Consideration needs to be given to the potential to compromise the operating field of view, or the noise of the extractor impairing communication. There is an increasing range of suitable products on the market. The future includes pendant systems built into the operating room.

CONCLUSION

The potential risks associated with surgical plume cannot be ignored. Health services should invest in plume extraction devices with a view to protecting their staff. The conduct of the operation should not be compromised by the devices chosen. Future operating theatres need to be designed to minimize exposure to plume.

The SARS-CoV-2 first wave impact in the acute inflammatory surgical pathologies

Anecdotal evidence suggests that community infection control measures during the COVID-19 outbreak have modified the number and natural history of acute surgical inflammatory processes (ASIP—appendicitis, cholecystitis, diverticulitis and perianal abscesses) admissions. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the presentation and treatment ASIP and quantify the effect of COVID-19 infection on the outcomes of ASIP patients. This was a multicentre, comparative study, whereby ASIP cases from 2019, 2020 and 2021 (March 14th to May 2nd) were analyzed. Data regarding patient and disease characteristics as well as outcomes, were collected from sixteen centres in Madrid, and one in Seville (Spain). The number of patients treated for ASIP in 2019 was 822 compared to 521 in 2020 and 835 in 2021. This 1/3rd reduction occurs mainly in patients with mild cases, while the number of severe cases was similar. Surgical standards suffered a step back during the first wave: Lower laparoscopic approach and longer length of stay. We also found a more conservative approach to the patients this year, non-justified by clinical circumstances. Luckily these standards improved again in 2021. The positive COVID-19 status itself did not have a direct impact on mortality. Strikingly, none of the 33 surgically treated COVID positive patients during both years died postoperatively. This is an interesting finding which, if confirmed through future research with a larger sample size of COVID-19 positive patients, can expedite the recovery phase of acute surgical services.

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.

[Impact of COVID-19 on elective and emergency colorectal surgery]

BACKGROUND

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has led to far-reaching changes in the treatment reality in practically all fields of medicine.

OBJECTIVE

Recommendations on the perioperative management with respect to SARS-CoV‑2 and presentation of the impact of the pandemic on colorectal surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out.

RESULTS

Perioperative SARS-CoV‑2 infections lead to a clearly increased postoperative mortality and must be avoided by a structured bundle of measures. The worldwide limitations on screening investigations and treatment options can in the medium term result in an increased mortality due to colorectal cancer. In emergency treatment there was also a substantial reduction in case numbers with the danger of delayed interventions.

CONCLUSION

A rapid normalization of clinical treatment pathways in colorectal surgery is necessary to avoid long-term negative sequelae for patients.

Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer Performed During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Delay in time to esophagectomy for esophageal cancer has been shown to have worse peri-operative and long-term outcomes. We hypothesized that COVID-19 would cause a delay to surgery, with worse perioperative outcomes, compared to standard operations. All esophagectomies for esophageal cancer at a single institution from March-June 2020, COVID-19 group, and from 2019 were reviewed and peri-operative details were compared between groups. Ninety-six esophagectomies were performed in 2019 vs 37 during March-June 2020 (COVID-19 group). No differences between groups were found for preoperative comorbidities. Wait-time to surgery from final neoadjuvant treatment was similar, median 50 days in 2019 vs 53 days during COVID-19 p = 0.601. There was no increased upstaging, from clinical stage to pathologic stage, 9.4% in 2019 vs 7.5% in COVID-19 p = 0.841. Fewer overall complications occurred during COVID-19 vs 2019, 43.2% vs 64.6% p = 0.031, but complications were similar by specific grades. Readmission rates were not statistically different during COVID-19 than 2019, 16.2% vs 10.4% p = 0.38. No peri-operative mortalities or COVID-19 infections were seen in the COVID-19 group. Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer was not associated with worse outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic with minimal risk of infection when careful COVID-19 guidelines are followed. Prioritization is recommended to ensure no delays to surgery.

Local adaptation of laparoscopic smoke evacuator in COVID-19 pandemic situation

The pandemic of COVID-19 has been a game changer in many aspects of medical care, including laparoscopic surgery service. Uncertainty in the early pandemic has led to the fear of doing laparoscopic surgery with regard to the possibility of SARS-COV-2 transmission through surgical smoke. We carried out laparoscopic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic with intention to test our local adaptation of a laparoscopic smoke evacuator. Twenty-five laparoscopic cases for digestive surgery were performed with uneventful results. In summary, a low cost local adaptation of laparoscopic smoke and safe surgical behavior should be the standard of care when delivering laparoscopic surgery service in the pandemic era and forward.

Laparoscopy in Low-Income Countries: 10-Year Experience and Systematic Literature Review

Laparoscopy is a procedure that ultimately reduces hospital stay time and speeds up post-operative recovery. It is mainly performed in high-income countries but its implementation in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is increasing. However, no aggregate data exist regarding the outcomes of this procedure in resource-limited settings. We retrospectively reviewed all cases of laparoscopy recorded from January 2007 to March 2017 at the Department of Surgery of Beira to assess the related outcomes. Moreover, we performed a systematic review of the laparoscopic practices and outcomes in low-income countries. Data from the Department of Surgery of Beira identified 363 laparoscopic procedures, mainly relating to gynecological diseases, cholelithiasis, and appendicectomy with only a 1.6% complication rate (6 cases) and a 1.9% conversion rate (7 cases) to open surgery. The systematic review showed a pooled risk of overall complications significantly lower in laparoscopic vs. open appendicectomy (OR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.19-0.97; I² = 85.7%) and a significantly lower risk of infection (OR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.43-0.65; I² = 0.00%). The pooled SMD in operation duration in laparoscopic vs. open appendectomy was 0.58 (95% CI -0.00; 1.15; I² = 96.52), while the pooled SMD in hospitalization days was -1.35 (95% CI -1.87; -0.82; I² = 96.41). Laparoscopy is an expensive procedure to adopt as it requires new equipment and specialized trained health workers. However, it could reduce post-operative costs and complications, especially in terms of infections. It is crucial to increase its accessibility, acceptability, and quality particularly in LMICs, especially during this COVID-19 era when the reduction of patient hospitalization is essential.

Thyroid surgery during coronavirus-19 pandemic phases I, II and III: lessons learned in China, South Korea, Iran and Italy

OBJECTIVE

We compared demographic and clinic-pathological variables related to the number of surgeries for thyroid conditions or for cancer, morbidity, and fine needle aspiration (FNA) practices among Covid19 pandemic phases I, II, III and the same seasonal periods in 2019.

METHODS

The prospective database of the Division of Thyroid Surgery, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China was used for this study. Covid19 emergency levels were stratified according to the World Health Organization: phase I (January 25-February 25, 2020), phase II (February 26-March 19), phase III (March 20-April 20).

RESULTS

There were fewer outpatient FNAs and surgeries in 2020 than in 2019. There were no thyroid surgeries during phase I. There were also fewer surgeries for cancer with a significant reduction of advanced stage cancer treatments, mainly stage T1b N1a in phase II and T3bN1b in phase III. Operative times and postoperative stays were significantly shorter during the pandemic compared to our institutional baseline. In phase III, vocal cord paralysis (VCP) increased to 4.3% of our baseline numbers (P = 0.001). There were no cases of Covid19-related complications during the perioperative period. No patients required re-admission to the hospital.

CONCLUSION

The Covid19 outbreak reduced thyroid surgery patient volumes. The decrease of Covid19 emergency plans contributed to unexpected outcomes (reduction of early stage cancer treatment, decreased operative times and hospital stays, increased VCP rate).

Comparing the effectiveness of negative-pressure barrier devices in providing air clearance to prevent aerosol transmission

PURPOSE

To investigate the effectiveness of aerosol clearance using an aerosol box, aerosol bag, wall suction, and a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter evacuator to prevent aerosol transmission.

METHODS

The flow field was visualized using three protective device settings (an aerosol box, and an aerosol bag with and without sealed working channels) and four suction settings (no suction, wall suction, and a HEPA filter evacuator at flow rates of 415 liters per minute [LPM] and 530 LPM). All 12 subgroups were compared with a no intervention group. The primary outcome, aerosol concentration, was measured at the head, trunk, and foot of a mannequin.

RESULTS

The mean aerosol concentration was reduced at the head (p < 0.001) but increased at the feet (p = 0.005) with an aerosol box compared with no intervention. Non-sealed aerosol bags increased exposure at the head and trunk (both, p < 0.001). Sealed aerosol bags reduced aerosol concentration at the head, trunk, and foot of the mannequin (p < 0.001). A sealed aerosol bag alone, with wall suction, or with a HEPA filter evacuator reduced the aerosol concentration at the head by 7.15%, 36.61%, and 84.70%, respectively (99.9% confidence interval [CI]: -4.51-18.81, 27.48-45.73, and 78.99-90.40); trunk by 70.95%, 73.99%, and 91.59%, respectively (99.9% CI: 59.83-82.07, 52.64-95.33, and 87.51-95.66); and feet by 69.16%, 75.57%, and 92.30%, respectively (99.9% CI: 63.18-75.15, 69.76-81.37, and 88.18-96.42), compared with an aerosol box alone.

CONCLUSIONS

As aerosols spread, an airtight container with sealed working channels is effective when combined with suction devices.

Changes in surgicaL behaviOrs dUring the CoviD-19 pandemic. The SICE CLOUD19 Study

BACKGROUND

The spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus, which causes COVID-19 disease, profoundly impacted the surgical community. Recommendations have been published to manage patients needing surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey, under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery, aims to analyze how Italian surgeons have changed their practice during the pandemic.

METHODS

The authors designed an online survey that was circulated for completion to the Italian departments of general surgery registered in the Italian Ministry of Health database in December 2020. Questions were divided into three sections: hospital organization, screening policies, and safety profile of the surgical operation. The investigation periods were divided into the Italian pandemic phases I (March-May 2020), II (June-September 2020), and III (October-December 2020).

RESULTS

Of 447 invited departments, 226 answered the survey. Most hospitals were treating both COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. The reduction in effective beds dedicated to surgical activity was significant, affecting 59% of the responding units. 12.4% of the respondents in phase I, 2.6% in phase II, and 7.7% in phase III reported that their surgical unit had been closed. 51.4%, 23.5%, and 47.8% of the respondents had at least one colleague reassigned to non-surgical COVID-19 activities during the three phases. There has been a reduction in elective (> 200 procedures: 2.1%, 20.6% and 9.9% in the three phases, respectively) and emergency (< 20 procedures: 43.3%, 27.1%, 36.5% in the three phases, respectively) surgical activity. The use of laparoscopy also had a setback in phase I (25.8% performed less than 20% of elective procedures through laparoscopy). 60.6% of the respondents used a smoke evacuation device during laparoscopy in phase I, 61.6% in phase II, and 64.2% in phase III. Almost all responders (82.8% vs. 93.2% vs. 92.7%) in each analyzed period did not modify or reduce the use of high-energy devices.

CONCLUSION

This survey offers three faithful snapshots of how the surgical community has reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic during its three phases. The significant reduction in surgical activity indicates that better health policies and more evidence-based guidelines are needed to make up for lost time and surgery not performed during the pandemic.

DElayed COloRectal cancer care during COVID-19 Pandemic (DECOR-19): Global perspective from an international survey

BACKGROUND

The widespread nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been unprecedented. We sought to analyze its global impact with a survey on colorectal cancer care during the pandemic.

METHODS

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on preoperative assessment, elective surgery, and postoperative management of colorectal cancer patients was explored by a 35-item survey, which was distributed worldwide to members of surgical societies with an interest in colorectal cancer care. Respondents were divided into 2 comparator groups: (1) "delay" group: colorectal cancer care affected by the pandemic and (2) "no delay" group: unaltered colorectal cancer practice.

RESULTS

A total of 1,051 respondents from 84 countries completed the survey. No substantial differences in demographics were found between the delay (745, 70.9%) and no delay (306, 29.1%) groups. Suspension of multidisciplinary team meetings, staff members quarantined or relocated to coronavirus disease 2019 units, units fully dedicated to coronavirus disease 2019 care, and personal protective equipment not readily available were factors significantly associated to delays in endoscopy, radiology, surgery, histopathology, and prolonged chemoradiation therapy-to-surgery intervals. In the delay group, 48.9% of respondents reported a change in the initial surgical plan, and 26.3% reported a shift from elective to urgent operations. Recovery of colorectal cancer care was associated with the status of the outbreak. Practicing in coronavirus disease-free units, no change in operative slots and staff members not relocated to coronavirus disease 2019 units were statistically associated with unaltered colorectal cancer care in the no delay group, while the geographic distribution was not.

CONCLUSION

Global changes in diagnostic and therapeutic colorectal cancer practices were evident. Changes were associated with differences in health care delivery systems, hospital's preparedness, resource availability, and local coronavirus disease 2019 prevalence rather than geographic factors. Strategic planning is required to optimize colorectal cancer care.

Changes in children's surgical services during the COVID-19 pandemic at a tertiary-level government hospital in a lower middle-income country

Objective

The aim of this study was to quantify the changes that occurred in the surgical services of children during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of a low/middle-income country.

Design

A case-control study was conducted at a large referral centre in Bangladesh among patients aged ≤12 years. Comparisons were made between cases admitted during a period of 'April to September 2020' (Pandemic period) and controls during a similar period in 2019 (Reference period). The number of admissions and outpatient department (OPD) attendances, age and sex distribution, diagnosis, number and types of surgeries performed (elective vs emergency), variations in treatment of acute appendicitis, types of anaesthesia and mortality were compared.

Results

Admissions were only 41% of previous year (635 vs 1549), and OPD attendances were only 28% of previous year (603 vs 2152). Admission of children reduced by 65.8%, but neonatal admission reduced only by 7.6%. The median age of the admitted patients was significantly lower during the pandemic period (3 vs 4 years, p<0.01). Acute appendicitis (151, 9.8%) and trauma (61, 9.6%), respectively, were the the most common causes of admission during the reference and the pandemic period. Elective surgeries were only 17% and emergency surgeries were 64% of previous year (p<0.01). Appendectomy (88, 9.1%) and laparotomy (77, 17.6%), respectively, were the most common surgeries performed during the reference and the pandemic period. Conservative treatment of acute appendicitis was more during the pandemic period (47.5% vs 28.5%, p=0.01), but patients who underwent appendectomies had more complicated appendicitis (63.3% vs 42.1%, p=0.01). In all, 90.4% of surgeries were performed by resident doctors. There were no COVID-19- related deaths.

Conclusion

Trauma became the most common cause of admission during the pandemic, and neonatal surgical conditions remained almost unchanged with high mortality rates. Elective procedures and laparoscopy remained low and resident doctors played a major role in providing surgical services.

COVID-19 in Women's health reducing the risk of infection to patients and staff during acute and elective hospital admission for gynaecological surgery

The novel coronavirus SARS-Cov-2 has changed healthcare on a worldwide scale. This highly contagious respiratory virus has overwhelmed healthcare systems. Many staff were redeployed, and there was widespread cessation of non-urgent outpatient clinics and surgery. Outpatient clinics and theatre areas were converted to COVID-19 wards and intensive care units. Following the first peak, services began to recommence with new triaging and prioritisation guidance to safeguard patients and staff. Different countries and healthcare systems produced differing guidance and, in particular, variation in the best approach to continuing acute and elective surgical procedures. This chapter collates and evaluates the increasing international literature concerning the surgical management of gynaecological conditions during the pandemic, such that clear inferences, recommendations and guidance can be generated to aid clinical practice and safeguard against further major disruption arising from further COVID-19 peaks. The available data are assessed within the context of the current phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Laparoscopic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: detection of SARS-COV-2 in abdominal tissues, fluids, and surgical smoke

Background

There are still concerns over the safety of laparoscopic surgery in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients due to the potential risk of viral transmission through surgical smoke/laparoscopic pneumoperitoneum.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of currently available literature to determine the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) in abdominal tissues or fluids and in surgical smoke.

Results

A total of 19 studies (15 case reports and 4 case series) comprising 29 COVID-19 patients were included. The viral RNA was positively identified in 11 patients (37.9%). The samples that tested positive include the peritoneal fluid, bile, ascitic fluid, peritoneal dialysate, duodenal wall, and appendix. Similar samples, together with the omentum and abdominal subcutaneous fat, tested negative in the other patients. Only one study investigated SARS-COV-2 RNA in surgical smoke generated during laparoscopy, reporting negative findings.

Conclusions

There are conflicting results regarding the presence of SARS-COV-2 in abdominal tissues and fluids. No currently available evidence supports the hypothesis that SARS-COV-2 can be aerosolized and transmitted through surgical smoke. Larger studies are urgently needed to corroborate these findings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-021-02142-8.

Propensity of aerosol and droplet creation during oculoplastic procedures: A risk assessment with high-speed imaging amidst COVID-19 pandemic

Purpose

The study uses principles of liquid and gas mechanics to verify and quantify the generation of aerosols in oculoplastic procedures, namely surgery using a scalpel, electrosurgical device, and a mechanized drill.

Methods

Surgical techniques were performed ex vivo using the electrosurgical device, scalpel, and mechanized drill on the muscle and bone of commercially available chicken. The liquid and gas dynamics were observed using a high-speed high-resolution Photron SA5 camera (0.125 to 8 ms temporal resolution, 0.016 to 0.054 mm/pixel spatial resolution) and stroboscopic lighting (Veritas 120 E LED Constellation). The analysis was performed using in-house algorithms and ImageJ software.

Results

The use of a mechanized drill at 35000 rpm and a 3 mm fluted burr generated aerosol with particle size 50 to 550 microns with a spread of 1.8 m radius. Surgical smoke was generated by an electrosurgical device in both cutting and coagulation modes. Dispersion of the smoke could be controlled significantly by the use of suction, mean smoke spread ratio being 0.065 without suction and 0.002 with use of suction within 2 cm.

Conclusion

The quantification of the aerosol generation will help surgeons take practical decisions in their surgical techniques in the pandemic era.

Pre-operative testing and personal protective equipment in the operating room during a pandemic: A survey of Ontario general surgeons

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had major implications for general surgery practice. We sought to characterize general surgeons' perceptions of their surgical practice in Ontario, Canada, regarding operating room precautions to maximize safety during the pandemic.

METHODS

A web-administered cross-sectional survey was sent to general surgeons registered with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on May 19, 2020. Surgeons were surveyed regarding their practices in pre-operative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing, use of intra-operative personal protective equipment (PPE) given a patient's COVID-19 status, and management of common general surgical emergencies with COVID-19 patients. Responses were compared between surgeons from high- and low-prevalence public health units (PHUs) in Ontario using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

There were 81 respondents (rate: 81/271, 30%), 48 (59%) of whom were from a PHU in the top quartile of COVID-19 prevalence. Surgeons from low-prevalence PHUs reported pre-procedural COVID-19 testing rates similar to those reported in high-prevalence PHUs for elective (36% versus 55%), urgent (36% versus 54%), and emergent (20% versus 33%) surgeries. Seventy-eight percent of surgeons with COVID-19-negative patients limited trainees in the operating room compared with 96% of surgeons with COVID-19-positive patients. Use of N95 respirators was 17% for surgeons with COVID-19-negative patients, which dramatically increased to 62% for surgeons with patients whose COVID-19 status was unknown.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support a need for improved understanding of local disease prevalence and risk of COVID-19 transmission to conserve PPE and return surgical trainees to pre-pandemic standards.

COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) in Non-Airborne body fluids: A systematic review & Meta-analysis

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been predominantly respiratory. This study aimed to evaluate the presence of virus in non-airborne body fluids as transmission vehicles. Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from December 01, 2019, to July 01, 2020, using terms relating to SARS-CoV-2 and non-airborne clinical sample sources (feces, urine, blood, serum, serum, and peritoneum). Studies in humans, of any design, were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy 2 tool. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses) guidelines were used for abstracting data. If ≥5 studies reported proportions for the same non-respiratory site, a meta-analysis was conducted using either a fixed or random-effects model, depending on the presence of heterogeneity. A total of 22 studies with 648 patients were included. Most were cross-sectional and cohort studies. The SARS-CoV-2 RNA was most frequently detected in feces. Detectable RNA was reported in 17% of the blood samples, 8% of the serum, 16% in the semen, but rarely in urine. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in non-airborne sites varies widely with a third of non-airborne fluids. Patients with bowel and non-specific symptoms have persistence of virus in feces for upto 2 weeks after symptom resolution. Although there was a very low detection rate in urine, given the more frequent prevalence in blood samples, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with disrupted urothelium or undergoing urinary tract procedures, is likely to be higher. Healthcare providers need to consider non-airborne transmission and persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in body fluids to enable appropriate precautions to protect healthcare workers and carers.

Comparison of surgical smoke between open surgery and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease in the COVID-19 era

Background

Surgical smoke during operation is a well-known health hazard for medical staff. This study aimed to investigate the dynamics of surgical smoke during open surgery or laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease.

Methods

This study quantitated particulate matter (PM) counts as part of surgical smoke in 31 consecutive patients who underwent colectomy at the Niigata City General Hospital using a laser particle counter. Particles were graded by size as ≤ 2.5 μm PM (PM_2.5) or > 2.5 μm PM (large PM). Operative procedures were categorized as either open surgery (n = 14) or laparoscopic surgery (n = 17).

Results

The median patient age was 72 (range 41–89) years and 58.1% were male. The total PM_2.5, PM_2.5 per hour, and maximum PM_2.5 per minute counts during operation were significantly higher in open surgery than in laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.029, respectively). Large PM counts (total, per hour, and maximum per minute) were also higher in the open surgery group than in the laparoscopic surgery group. The maximum PM_2.5 concentration recorded was 38.6 µm/m³, which is considered “unhealthy for sensitive groups” according to the U.S. Environment Protection Agency air quality index standards, if it was a 24-h period mean value.

Conclusion

Exposure to surgical smoke is lower during laparoscopic surgery than during open surgery for colorectal diseases.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08394-1.

A Prospective Study to Identify Rates of SARS-CoV-2 Virus in the Peritoneum and Lower Genital Tract of Patients Having Surgery: An Observational Study

Study Objective

The risks to surgeons of carrying out aerosol-generating procedures during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are unknown. To start to define these risks, in a systematic manner, we investigated the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus in the abdominal fluid and lower genital tract of patients undergoing surgery.

Design

Prospective cross-sectional observational study.

Setting

Single, large United Kingdom hospital.

Patients

Total of 113 patients undergoing abdominal surgery or instrumentation of the lower genital tract.

Interventions

We took COVID-19 swabs from the peritoneal cavity and from the vagina from all eligible patients. Results were stratified by preoperative COVID-19 status.

Measurements and Main Results

In patients who were presumed COVID-19 negative at the time of surgery, SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA was detected in 0 of 102 peritoneal samples and 0 of 98 vaginal samples. Both cohorts included 4 patients who were antibody positive but nasopharyngeal swab test negative at the time of surgery. Peritoneal and vaginal swabs were also negative in 1 patient who had a positive nasopharyngeal swab immediately before surgery.

Conclusion

The presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the abdominal fluid or lower genital tract of presumed negative patients is nil or extremely low. These data will inform surgeons of the risks of restarting laparoscopic surgery at a time when COVID-19 is endemic in the population.

Is it Safe to Perform Elective Colorectal Surgical Procedures during the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Single Institution Experience with 103 Patients

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.

The role of a pediatric tertiary care center in avoiding collateral damage for children with acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 outbreak

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic-related lockdown on management and outcomes of children with acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted, including children treated for acute appendicitis (January 20th-May 11th, 2020). The data regarding the severity of appendicitis and outcome were collected and compared for two time periods, before and after the nationwide lockdown (March 17th, 2020).

RESULTS

The number of cases of acute appendicitis increased by 77% during the lockdown (n = 39 vs. n = 69, p = 0.03). During the lockdown, children treated for appendicitis were older (11.1 vs. 8.9 years, p = 0.003), and were more likely to live more than 5 km away from our institution (77% vs. 52%, p = 0.017). Less children had previously consulted a general practitioner (15% vs. 33%, p = 0.028), whereas more children were transferred from other hospitals (52% vs. 31%, p = 0.043). There was no difference in terms of length of hospital stay, rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess, ER visits, and readmissions between both periods. Three children (4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 and appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an increase in the number of children with appendicitis managed at our hospital during the COVID-19-related lockdown, management, and outcome remained similar. Although our pediatric center was strongly affected by this pandemic, maintaining our prior practice strategies for acute appendicitis avoided the occurrence of collateral damage for those children.

What surgeons should know about emergency operation for COVID-19 confirmed patients: A case report

Introduction

This case is shared to reiterate and confirm the principles of ensuring the safety of the surgical team caring for COVID-19-confirmed patients, thus, preventing the spread of infection within the hospital.

Case presentation

A 54-year-old male, COVID-19-confirmed patient complaining of abdominal pain since two days prior was transferred to our hospital. Perforated appendicitis with a periappendiceal abscess was diagnosed by computed tomography. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in a negative-pressure operating room. The surgical team wore enhanced personal protective equipment. Electrocautery was not used during surgery and no other special instruments were applied to reduce aerosol generation. No special instruments or filters were used for the removal of intra-abdominal gas. The operation was completed successfully and no immediate surgical complications occurred. The patient advanced to a normal diet on the 4th postoperative day. The patient was treated with antibiotics for bacteremia and antiviral therapy for underlying pneumonia in the setting of COVID-19 with most symptoms dissipating by the 7th postoperative day. The patient was discharged on the 30th postoperative day without any complications.

Discussion

A well-designed manual, a well-trained surgical team, and a negative-pressure operating room are essential for safe laparoscopic appendectomies in COVID-19 patients.

Conclusion

When surgery is performed in a negative-pressure operating room by a well-trained surgical team, a laparoscopic appendectomy can be successfully performed under the principles of obtaining optimum clinical outcomes while faithfully ensuring the safety of healthcare providers and the hospital environment.

EAES Recommendations for Recovery Plan in Minimally Invasive Surgery Amid COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

COVID-19 pandemic presented an unexpected challenge for the surgical community in general and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) specialists in particular. This document aims to summarize recent evidence and experts’ opinion and formulate recommendations to guide the surgical community on how to best organize the recovery plan for surgical activity across different sub-specialities after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Recommendations were developed through a Delphi process for establishment of expert consensus. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different surgical specialities following the COVID-19 crisis. Sixty-five experts from 24 countries, representing the entire EAES board, were invited. Fifty clinicians and six engineers accepted the invitation and drafted statements based on specific key questions. Anonymous voting on the statements was performed until consensus was achieved, defined by at least 70% agreement.

Results

A total of 92 consensus statements were formulated with regard to safe resumption of surgery across eight domains, addressing general surgery, upper GI, lower GI, bariatrics, endocrine, HPB, abdominal wall and technology/research. The statements addressed elective and emergency services across all subspecialties with specific attention to the role of MIS during the recovery plan. Eighty-four of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting (91.3%) and another 8 during the following round after substantial modification, resulting in a 100% consensus.

Conclusion

The recommendations formulated by the EAES board establish a framework for resumption of surgery following COVID-19 pandemic with particular focus on the role of MIS across surgical specialities. The statements have the potential for wide application in the clinical setting, education activities and research work across different healthcare systems.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-08131-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

How can we minimize the potential risk of viral contamination during laparoscopic procedures for suspected or infected COVID-19 patients?

Several societies have raised the risk of viral transmission of SARS-Cov-2 due to surgical smoke during laparoscopic procedures in infected patients. We propose to discuss this issue and to describe specific measures during laparoscopic procedures and a new homemade closed filtration system for smoke evacuation. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, performing a laparoscopy should meet multi-modal requirements. Surgical smoke evacuation device may be an effective tool in reducing exposure to surgical smoke and aerosols.

The impact of COVID-19 on gastric cancer surgery: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. Patients with cancer are more likely to incur poor clinical outcomes. Due to the prevailing pandemic, we propose some surgical strategies for gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

The 'COVID-19' period was defined as occurring between 2020 and 01-20 and 2020-03-20. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups, pre-COVID-19 group (PCG) and COVID-19 group (CG). A total of 109 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled in this study.

RESULTS

The waiting time before admission increased by 4 days in the CG (PCG: 4.5 [IQR: 2, 7.8] vs. CG: 8.0 [IQR: 2,20]; p = 0.006). More patients had performed chest CT scans besides abdominal CT before admission during the COVID-19 period (PCG: 22 [32%] vs. CG: 30 [73%], p = 0.001). After admission during the COVID period, the waiting time before surgery was longer (PCG: 3[IQR: 2,5] vs. CG: 7[IQR: 5,9]; p < 0.001), more laparoscopic surgeries were performed (PCG: 51[75%] vs. CG: 38[92%], p = 0.021), and hospital stay period after surgery was longer (7[IQR: 6,8] vs.9[IQR:7,11]; p < 0.001). In addition, the total cost of hospitalization increased during this period, (PCG: 9.22[IQR:7.82,10.97] vs. CG: 10.42[IQR:8.99,12.57]; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

This study provides an opportunity for our surgical colleagues to reflect on their own services and any contingency plans they may have to tackle the COVID-19 crisis.

Laparoscopic Surgery in COVID-19 Era-Safety and Ethical Issues

(1) Background: The paper aims to review the available evidence regarding the health risk of the aerosolization induced by laparoscopy induced and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon minimally invasive surgery. (2) Materials and methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed on PubMed, Medline and Scopus until 10 July. (3) Results: Chemicals, carcinogens and biologically active materials, such as bacteria and viruses, have been isolated in surgical smoke. However, the only evidence of viral transmission through surgical smoke to medical staff is post-laser ablation of HPV-positive genital warts. The reports of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery revealed the presence of the virus, when tested, in digestive wall and stools in 50% of cases but not in bile or peritoneal fluid. All surgeries did not result in contamination of the personnel, when protective measures were applied, including personal protective equipment (PPE) and filtration of the pneumoperitoneum. There are no comparative studies between classical and laparoscopic surgery. (4) Conclusions: Previously published data showed there is a possible infectious and toxic risk related to surgical smoke but not particularly proven for SARS-CoV-2. Implementing standardized filtration systems for smoke evacuation during laparoscopy, although increases costs, is necessary to increase the safety and it will probably remain a routine also in the future.