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.

Background: The role of laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of gastric cancer is still controversial, particularly in terms of oncologic efficacy. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection for gastric cancer at a single Western institution. Subjects and Methods: This study was designed as a matched cohort study from a prospective gastric cancer database. Forty-one patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer between June 2008 and January 2012 were matched with 41 patients undergoing open gastrectomy in the same time period. Patient pairing was done according to age, gender, type of gastrectomy (subtotal or total), and tumor stage via a randomized statistical method. The short-term outcomes and oncologic adequacy of the laparoscopic and open procedures were compared. A D2 lymph node dissection was performed in the majority of patients in both groups. Results: The two study groups were similar with respect to patient and tumor characteristics. Laparoscopic procedures were associated with a decreased blood loss (118.7 versus 312.4 mL, P < .005), incidence of surgeryunrelated complications (3 versus 9 patients, P < .05), and duration of hospital stay (8.1 versus 11.5 days, P < .05) but increased operative time for both subtotal (223.5 versus 158.2 minutes, P < .001) and total (298.1 versus 185.5 minutes, P < .001) gastrectomies. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes after D2 dissection was similar: 30.0 for laparoscopic and 29.7 for open patients. Conclusions: Within the limitations of a nonrandomized analysis, this study shows that the laparoscopic approach is a safe and oncologically adequate option for the treatment of gastric cancer, which compares favorably with open gastrectomy in short-term outcomes.

Background: A gold standard method for malnutrition diagnosis is still lacking in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). Objective: The aims of this study are to determine the prevalence of malnutrition in IBD patients according with recently published Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria, to detect the factors contributing to the onset of malnutrition, and to evaluate the most accurate predictor of malnutrition risk within the available nutritional screening tools. Methods: Fifty-three consecutive adult IBD patients [38 Crohn’s disease (CD) and 15 ulcerative colitis (UC)] had been assessed preoperatively by a multidisciplinary IBD team before undergoing elective surgery. Several malnutrition risk tools were tested, such as NRS-2002, MUST, MST, MIRT, and SaskIBD-NR. The statistical association of independent GLIM variables with baseline characteristics of patients was explored as well as the concordance with the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN 2015) and the screening tools. Results: Twenty-two IBD patients (42%) were malnourished according to GLIM criteria, of which 13 were CD (34%) and 9 UC (60%). The etiological criteria of inflammation and reduction of food intake were present in 51% and 19% of our patients, respectively. The prevalence of GLIM phenotypic criteria was 28%, 28% and 34% for BMI, Free Fat Mass Index (FFMI) and unintended weight loss (UWL), respectively. The presence of ileostomy was statistically associated with a higher prevalence of BMI (p = 0.030), FFMI (p = 0.030) and UWL (p = 0.002) values lower than the GLIM criteria cut-offs, while secondary surgery is associated with a decrease in FFMI (p = 0.017) and UWL (p = 0.041). The sensitivity of the tested nutritional screening tools, compared with the GLIM prevalence of malnutrition, was not satisfactory (between 50 and 82%). Conclusions: GLIM has a higher rate of malnutrition detection than ESPEN 2015, as malnutrition in IBD seems linked to inflammation and secondary malabsorption even without a reduction of food intake. The sensitivity of the screening tools is lower than the specificity when compared with GLIM criteria for malnutrition diagnosis.

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.

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has demonstrated its superiority over the open approach, however it still has some technical limitations that lead to the development of robotic platforms. Nevertheless the literature on this topic is rapidly expanding there is still no consensus about benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over the laparoscopic one. For this reason a review of all the literature examining robotic surgery for rectal cancer was performed. Two reviewers independently conducted a search of electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) using the key words “rectum”, “rectal”, “cancer”, “laparoscopy”, “robot”. After the initial screen of 266 articles, 43 papers were selected for review. A total of 3013 patients were included in the review. The most commonly performed intervention was low anterior resection (1450 patients, 48.1%), followed by anterior resections (997 patients, 33%), ultra-low anterior resections (393 patients, 13%) and abdominoperineal resections (173 patients, 5.7%). Robotic rectal surgery seems to offer potential advantages especially in low anterior resections with lower conversions rates and better preservation of the autonomic function. Quality of mesorectum and status of and circumferential resection margins are similar to those obtained with conventional laparoscopy even if robotic rectal surgery is undoubtedly associated with longer operative times. This review demonstrated that robotic rectal surgery is both safe and feasible but there is no evidence of its superiority over laparoscopy in terms of postoperative, clinical outcomes and incidence of complications. In conclusion robotic rectal surgery seems to overcome some of technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery especially for tumors requiring low and ultra-low anterior resections but this technical improvement seems not to provide, until now, any significant clinical advantages to the patients.