Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality ). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.

Background and objectives: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is an important healthcare-associated infection, with important consequences both from a medical and financial point of view, but its correlation with anastomotic leaks after colorectal surgeries is scarcely reported in the literature. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study looking for patients who underwent open or laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancers between January 2012 and December 2017, excluding emergency surgeries for complicated colorectal tumors. We also examined patient history for risk factors for CDI such as age, sex, comorbidities, and clinical findings at admission or during hospital stay as well as tumor characteristics. Results: A total of 360 patients were included in the study, out of which 320 underwent surgeries that included anastomoses. There were 19 cases of anastomotic leaks, out of which 13 patients were diagnosed with CDI, with a statistic significance for association between CDI and anastomotic leakage (p < 0.0001). Most patients who developed both CDI and anastomotic leaks had left-sided resections or a type of rectal resection, while none of the patients with right-sided resections had this association, but with no statistical significance possibly due to the limited number of cases. Conclusions: CDI is a relevant risk factor and should be taken into consideration when trying to prevent anastomotic leaks in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery for colon or rectal cancer. Thorough assessment of risk factors at admission should be mandatory in order to adequately prepare the patient and plan an optimal course of treatment. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings and a multidisciplinary approach, with a team which should always include the surgeon, is mandatory when it comes to CDI prevention.

Esophageal foreign bodies are a relatively frequent pathology which does not need any kind of treatment in up to 80% of cases. Ten to 20% of patients are treated endoscopically, while less than 1% need surgery either due to perforation or to treat complications. We address the case of a 50 year old male who presented with an impacted esophageal foreign body which had perforated the esophageal wall. Flexible endoscopy confirmed the diagnosis and identified a large fish bone that was stuck transversally in the distal cervical esophagus and could not be mobilized. Surgery was mandatory in this case, with the extraction of the bone and double-layer suture, which did not prevent the appearence of an esophageal leakage more than two weeks postoperatively, which was treated conservatively. Even if it is rarely employed in the treatment of gastrointestinal foreign bodies, surgical treatment is unavoidable in cases of irretrievable esophageal foreign bodies or esophageal perforation.