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 the limitations of the study, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy can be considered not only safe and feasible but also permits a better quality of life and is acceptable in terms of cost-effectiveness to Italian and European health care services.

Background The Blumgart anastomosis is a method of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) which combines the principle of duct-to-mucosa anastomosis with an invagination technique of the pancreas. Methods Retrospective study involving consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer. Data predictive of pancreatic fistula and postoperative outcomes were collected. The patients were divided into three groups and were compared based on the type of pancreatic anastomosis performed: Blumgart anastomosis (BA), duct-to-mucosa anastomosis (DtoM), and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ). The primary endpoint was to determine the occurrence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). The secondary endpoints were to determine whether postoperative pancreatic fistula grade C (POPF C) and/or severe complications occurred as well as to determine the reoperation rate and 30and 90-day mortality. A propensity score matching analysis was used. Results Using propensity score matching (PSM), the occurrence of CR-POPF was not significantly different between the BA (21.6%) and the other pancreatic anastomoses (all 31.1%, DtoM = 27.0%; PJ = 35.1%). However, the BA significantly reduced (1) severe complications (0 versus 35.1%; P < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (0% versus 12.2%; P = 0.028) with respect to all anastomoses; (2) severe complications (0% versus 29.7%; P < 0.001), POPF grade C (0% versus 16.2%; P = 0.025), and reoperation (2.7% versus 16.2%; P = 0.056) with respect to DtoM; and (3) severe complications (0% versus 40.5%; P < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (0% versus 13.5%; P = 0.054) with respect to PJ. Conclusions Applying the PSM analysis for the first time, the present study seemed to suggest that the BA succeeded in minimizing severe complications after PD.

The aim of this study was to pool data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) limited to resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) to determine whether a neoadjuvant therapy impacts on disease-free survival (DFS) and surgical outcome. Summary Background Data: Few underpowered studies have suggested benefits from neoadjuvant chemo (AE radiation) for strictly resectable PDAC without offering conclusive recommendations. Methods: Three RCTs were identified comparing neoadjuvant chemo (AE radio) therapy vs. upfront surgery followed by adjuvant therapy in all cases. Data were pooled targeting DFS as primary endpoint, whereas overall survival (OS), postoperative morbidity, and mortality were investigated as secondary endpoints. Survival endpoints DFS and OS were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression with study-specific baseline hazards.Results: A total of 130 patients were randomized (56 in the neoadjuvant and 74 in the control group). DFS was significantly longer in the neoadjuvant treatment group compared to surgery only [hazard ratio (HR) 0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.9] (P ¼ 0.01). Furthermore, DFS for the subgroup of R0 resections was similarly longer in the neoadjuvant treated group (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.35-0.9, P ¼ 0.045). Although postoperative complications (Comprehensive Complication Index, CCI 1 ) occurred less frequently (P ¼ 0.008), patients after neoadjuvant therapy experienced a higher toxicity, but without negative impact on oncological or surgical outcome parameters. Conclusion: Neoadjuvant therapy can be offered as an acceptable standard of care for patients with purely resectable PDAC. Future research with the advances of precision oncology should now focus on the definition of the optimal regimen.