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.

BackgroundApplication of abdominal negative-pressure therapy (NPT) is lifesaving when conservative measures fail to reduce sustained increase of the intra-abdominal pressure and it is impossible to achieve source control in a single operation due to severe peritonitis. The aim of this study is to share the initial experience with abdominal NPT in Latvia and provide a review of the relevant literature.MethodsIn total, 22 patients were included. All patients were treated with KCI® ABThera™ NPT systems. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score on admission, daily sequential organ failure assessment score and Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI) were calculated for severity definition. The frequency of NPT system changes, daily amount of aspirated fluid effluent and the time of abdominal closure were assessed. The overall hospital and ICU stay, as well as the outcomes and the complication rate, were analysed.ResultsA complicated intra-abdominal infection was treated in 18 patients. Abdominal compartment syndrome due to severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), secondary ileus and damage control in polytrauma were indications for NPT in four patients. The median age of the patients was 59 years (range, 28 to 81), median APACHE II score was 15 points (range, 9 to 32) and median MPI was 28 points (range, 21 to 40), indicating a prognostic mortality risk of 60%. Sepsis developed in all patients, and in 20 of them, it was severe. NPT systems were changed on a median of every 4 days, and abdominal closure was feasible on the seventh postoperative day without needing a repeated laparotomy. Two NPT systems were removed due to bleeding from the retroperitoneal space in patients with SAP. Intestinal fistulae developed in three patients that were successfully treated conservatively. Incisional hernia occurred in three patients. The overall ICU and hospital stay were 14 (range, 5 to 56) and 25 days (range, 10 to 87), respectively. Only one patient died, contributing to the overall mortality of 4.5%.ConclusionsApplication of abdominal NPT could be a very promising technique for the control of sustained intra-abdominal hypertension and management of severe sepsis due to purulent peritonitis. Further trials are justified for a detailed evaluation of abdominal NPT indications.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) performed by choledochoscope through the cystic duct or directly through the incision in the common bile duct (CBD) are well established methods for restoring biliary drainage function in patients with choledocholithiasis. Although it plays a crucial role in the transcystic approach, transductal approach can be achieved differently. However, it has restrictions in availability due to its expensiveness. Objective — to report efficacy of transductal LCBDE without laparoscopic choledochoscopy. Materials and methods. This is a prospective study of urgently admitted patients who underwent trans‑ductal LCBDE due to confirmed choledocholithiasis. During laparoscopy, clearance of the CBD was achieved in two ways: by choledochoscopy (group CS+, n = 43) and without it (group CS–, n = 34). The data of patient demographics, comorbidities, operative outcomes, morbidity, mortality and long‑term biliary complications were analysed and compared between the groups. Results. Out of a total of 154 patients with confirmed choledocholithiasis, the trans‑ductal approach of LCBDE was applied to 77 patients. In 43 patients, clearance was done with choledochoscope (group CS+) and in 34 patients without it (group CS–). Gallstone related complications and comorbidities did not differ between the groups. Surgery was done 4 days after admission in both groups. Median duration of the operation was significantly shorter in the group CS–, 93 vs 120 minutes (p = 0.036), without any difference in conversion and complication rates. Clearance rate was markedly high in both groups. Conclusions. Transductal laparoscopic common bile duct exploration without choledochoscopy is a time‑saving, safe and effective way for CBD clearance, without additional equipment.