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.

To support the global restart of elective surgery, data from an international prospective cohort study of 8492 patients (69 countries) was analysed using artificial intelligence (machine learning techniques) to develop a predictive score for mortality in surgical patients with SARS-CoV-2. We found that patient rather than operation factors were the best predictors and used these to create the COVIDsurg Mortality Score (https://covidsurgrisk.app). Our data demonstrates that it is safe to restart a wide range of surgical services for selected patients.

No abstract

et al. Recommendations for general surgery activities in a pandemic scenario (SARS-CoV-2).

No abstract

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours (GISTs) are rare mesenchymal tumours that are specific to GI tract. GISTs usually associated with advanced age and have a slight male preponderance. GISTs are commonly found in stomach. Jujunal GISTs are the rarest and account for about 0.1-3% of all GI tumours [1]. The most common clinical manifestation of symptomatic GISTs includes intermittent bleeding due to mucosal ulceration. Massive, life threatening gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a rare occurrence. We report a rare case of bleeding Jejunal GIST in a 32-year-old female who presented with haemorrhagic shock that required resuscitative laparotomy. Histopathology and immunohistochemistry confirmed the tumour to have features of GIST with clear margins and post-operative cross-sectional imaging excluded any metastatic deposits.

Aim Legible, accurate and clear documentation of operative findings is an integral part of patient safety, with guidelines from the Royal College of Surgeons and General Medical Council having clear standards of operative note-keeping. However, a substantial variation in the quality and accuracy of these notes can still be observed in everyday practice. We recognised the significance of a minimum set of data in operative record keeping for diagnostic laparoscopies as a standard, to improve quality and uniformity. Method We retrospectively examined 50 diagnostic laparoscopies over 6 months and assessed their operative notes against the guidelines described above. We found that there was no clear uniformity in reporting, subjective descriptions used and a significant amount of under-reporting of operative findings. We developed a proforma as a substitute for the documentation of operative findings which was implemented in the second phase of the audit and the compliance was assessed over a 3-month period. Results We found that usage of the proforma was limited (9/22), however those notes using the proforma were compliant with the guidelines for operative note keeping, to a much higher degree than those without. All the operative findings were documented for 100% of those notes which used the proforma; for those using freehand notes, only the appendix was identified to the same standard, which is explained by all diagnostic laparoscopies proceeding to appendicectomies. Conclusions Using a proforma as standard record keeping can improve the quality and accuracy of operative notes and thereby help improve safety and quality of patient care.