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.

Summary Background 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03471494 . Findings Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit.

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.

We have performed a detailed morphometric analysis of the length and anatomic routes of the greater palatine canal (GPC) and a systematic review of the literature on the anatomy of the GPC with the aim of informing dentists, maxillofacial surgeons, otorhinolaryngologists and other specialists performing procedures in the area of the GPC. In total, we analysed 1,500 archived adult head computed tomography scans to determine the length of the GPC and of the routes on both sides, as well as the dimensions and opening directions of the greater palatine foramen. The systematic review of the literature was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. The study group comprised 783 females (52.2 %) and 717 males with a mean (± standard deviation) age of 42.1 ± 16.9 years; there was significant difference in age between sexes (p = 0.33). The average length of the GPC was 31.1 ± 2.9 (range 15–44) mm. The GPC travelled three different paths in the sagittal plane and four different paths in the coronal plane. Most often it descended from the pterygopalatine fossa inferiorly before changing to an anterior-inferior direction (68.4 %; sagittal plane) and inferior-laterally before changing to an inferior-medial direction (40.7 %; (coronal plane). In total, the GPF had four different opening directions: inferior-anterior-medial (82.1 %), inferior-anterior-lateral (4.0 %), anterior (7.6 %), and vertical (5.3 %). Twenty-five studies were included in the systematic review. In conclusion, the information presented here provides clinicians with the anatomical knowledge necessary to minimize the risk of complications when performing procedures involving infiltration of the GPC.

Accurate knowledge of greater palatine foramen (GPF) anatomy is necessary when performing a variety of anaesthesiological, dental or surgical procedures. The first aim of this study was to localize the GPF in relation to multiple anatomical landmarks. The second aim was to perform a systematic review of literature, and to conduct a meta-analysis on the subject of GPF position to aid clinicians in their practice. One-hundred and fifty dry, adult, human skulls and 1200 archived head computed tomography scans were assessed and measured in terms of GPF relation to other anatomical reference points. A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases, and a meta-analysis on the subject of GPF relation to the maxillary molars was conducted. On average, in the Polish population, the GPF was positioned 15.9 AE 1.5 mm from the midline maxillary suture (MMS), 3.0 AE 1.2 mm from the alveolar ridge (AR) and 17.0 AE 1.5 mm from the posterior nasal spine (PNS); 74.7% of GPF were positioned opposite the third maxillary molar (M3). Twenty-seven studies were included in the systematic review and 23 in the meta-analysis (n = 6927 GPF). The pooled prevalence of the GPF being positioned opposite the M3 was 63.9% (95% confidence interval = 56.6-70.9%). Concluding, the GPF is most often located opposite the M3 in the majority of the world's populations. The maxillary molars are the best landmarks for locating the GPF. In edentulous patients the most useful points for approximating the position of the GPF are the AR, MMS and PNS. This study introduces an easy and repeatable classification to reference the GPF to the maxillary molars.