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 COVID‐19 is an evolving worldwide pandemic causing significant morbidity and mortality. COVID‐19 vaccinations have been developed to increase immunity against the virus. In New Zealand, the Pfizer BioNTech mRNA vaccine has been provisionally approved for use. Axillary lymphadenopathy is a recognized side effect of the mRNA vaccine, however cervical lymphadenopathy has also been reported. Due to a wide range of differential diagnoses, the finding of cervical lymphadenopathy requires thorough investigation which can include imaging and invasive diagnostic procedures. Methods Five patients were identified by otorhinolaryngology (ORL) consultants at Whangarei Base Hospital and Waikato Hospital between 15/7/2021 and 21/12/2021 after being investigated through high suspicion of cancer triage pathways set by the New Zealand Ministry of Health. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with cervical lymphadenopathy following vaccination. Exclusion criteria were no history of vaccination or lymphadenopathy present before vaccination. Results All patients were identified to have cervical lymphadenopathy on radiological imaging and a recent history of COVID‐19 vaccination with the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine. Interval vaccination to fine needle aspiration time ranged between 41 and 76 days. All patients had cytological or histological diagnosis showing reactive findings or interval imaging showing resolution of lymphadenopathy. Conclusion With increasing levels of COVID‐19 vaccination and booster vaccinations we will continue to see cases of COVID‐19 vaccine associated cervical lymphadenopathy. We highlight the importance of taking a COVID‐19 vaccination history and including COVID‐19 associated cervical lymphadenopathy in the differential diagnosis of presentation with a neck lump.

Background: Skin grafting reflects a common dermatological procedure for closing skin defects. Patient education is important for managing expectation and optimising skin graft take. While health information is increasingly accessed on the internet, there are no existing studies assessing their quality. Methods:The first 25 results from Google, Microsoft Bing and Yahoo! search engines using the term 'skin graft' were analysed using a variety of standard instruments. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade score (FKG), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and the New Dale-Chall Readability Index (NDC). Reliability was assessed using the DISCERN instrument and credibility with the Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark Criteria (JAMA). Transparency was identified by presence of the Health On the Net Foundation Code certification (HON-code).Results: Seventy-five websites were identified. After exclusion, forty-three remaining websites were analysed with average FKG, GFI and SMOG scores of 7.8, 10.1 and 10.7, respectively. The average NDC was 5.9. The average reliability was fair with a DISCERN score based on the first 15 questions of the instrument of 42.6. The mean JAMA score was 2, and 9 websites displayed the HON-code certificate. Conclusions: Readability, reliability and credibility of online health information regarding skin grafting can be improved. Health care providers should critically assess existing online patient information or develop alternative material to educate patients undergoing skin graft surgery.