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.

The speed and scale of the global COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented pressures on health services worldwide, requiring new methods of service delivery during the health crisis. In the setting of severe resource constraint and high risk of infection to patients and clinicians, there is an urgent need to identify consensus statements on head and neck surgical oncology practice. We completed a modified Delphi consensus process of three rounds with 40 international experts in head and neck cancer surgical, radiation, and medical oncology, representing 35 international professional societies and national clinical trial groups. Endorsed by 39 societies and professional bodies, these consensus practice recommendations aim to decrease inconsistency of practice, reduce uncertainty in care, and provide reassurance for clinicians worldwide for head and neck surgical oncology in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the setting of acute severe resource constraint and high risk of infection to patients and staff.

This is the official guideline endorsed by the specialty associations involved in the care of head and neck cancer patients in the UK. It provides recommendations on the assessment and management of patients with cancer of the oral cavity and the lip.Recommendations• Surgery remains the mainstay of management for oral cavity tumours. (R)• Tumour resection should be performed with a clinical clearance of 1 cm vital structures permitting. (R)• Elective neck treatment should be offered for all oral cavity tumours. (R)• Adjuvant radiochemotherapy in the presence of advanced neck disease or positive margins improves control rates. (R)• Early stage lip cancer can be treated equally well by surgery or radiation therapy. (R)

Background The eighth international symposium for sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in head and neck cancer was held in 2018. This consensus conference aimed to deliver current multidisciplinary guidelines. This document focuses on the surgical aspects of SNB for oral cancer. Method Invited expert faculty selected topics requiring guidelines. Topics were reviewed and evidence evaluated where available. Data were presented at the consensus meeting, with live debate from panels comprising expert, nonexpert, and patient representatives followed by voting to assess the level of support for proposed recommendations. Evidence review, debate, and voting results were all considered in constructing these guidelines. Results/Conclusion A range of topics were considered, from patient selection to surgical technique and follow‐up schedule. Consensus was not achieved in all areas, highlighting potential issues that would benefit from prospective studies. Nevertheless these guidelines represent an up‐to‐date pragmatic recommendation based on current evidence and expert opinion.

No abstract

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic is causing a significant increase in the number of patients requiring relatively prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation and an associated surge in patients who need a tracheostomy to facilitate weaning from respiratory support. In parallel, there has been a global increase in guidance from professional bodies representing staff who care for patients with tracheostomies at different points in their acute hospital journey, rehabilitation and recovery. Of concern are the risks to healthcare staff of infection arising from tracheostomy insertion and caring for patients with a tracheostomy. Hospitals are also facing extraordinary demands on critical care services such that many patients who require a tracheostomy will be managed outside established intensive care or head and neck units and cared for by staff with little tracheostomy experience. These concerns led NHS England and NHS Improvement to expedite the National Patient Safety Improvement Programme's 'Safe Tracheostomy Care' workstream as part of the NHS COVID-19 response. Supporting this workstream, UK stakeholder organisations involved in tracheostomy care were invited to develop consensus guidance based on: expert opinion; the best available published literature; and existing multidisciplinary guidelines. Topics with direct relevance for frontline staff were identified. This consensus guidance includes:

No abstract