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.

Despite innovative advancements, the management of distally located rectal cancer (RC) remains a formidable endeavor. The critical location of the tumor predisposes it to a circumferential resection margin that tends to involve the sphincters and surrounding organs, pelvic lymph node metastasis, and anastomotic complications. In this regard, colorectal surgeons should be aware of issues beyond the performance of total mesorectal excision (TME). For decades, abdominoperineal resection had been the standard of care for low-lying RC; however, its association with high rates of tumor recurrence, tumor perforation, and poorer survival has stimulated the development of novel surgical techniques and modifications, such as extralevator abdominoperineal excision. Similarly, difficult dissections and poor visualization, especially in obese patients with low-lying tumors, have led to the development of transanal TME or the “bottom-to-up” approach. Additionally, while neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has allowed for the execution of more sphincter-saving procedures without oncologic compromise, functional outcomes remain an issue. Nevertheless, neoadjuvant treatment can lead to significant tumor regression and complete pathological response, permitting the utilization of organ-preserving strategies. At present, an East and West dualism pervades the management of lateral lymph node metastasis, thereby calling for a more global and united approach. Moreover, with the increasing importance of quality of life, a tailored, individualized treatment approach is of utmost importance when taking into account oncologic and anticipated functional outcomes.

No abstract

Advancements in rectal cancer treatment have resulted in improvement only in locoregional control and have failed to address distant relapse, which is the predominant mode of treatment failure in rectal cancer. As the efficacy of conventional chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) reaches a plateau, the need for alternative strategies in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has grown in relevance. Several novel strategies have been conceptualized to address this issue, including: 1) neoadjuvant induction and consolidation chemotherapy before CRT; 2) neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone to avoid the sequelae of radiation; and 3) nonoperative management for patients who achieved pathological or clinical complete response after CRT. This article explores the issues, recent advances and paradigm shifts in the management of LARC and emphasizes the need for a personalized treatment plan for each patient based on tumor stage, location, gene expression and quality of life.