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.

Introduction: Despite global efforts to contain the illness, COVID-19 continues to have severe health, life, and economic repercussions; thus, maintaining vaccine development is mandatory. Different directions concerning COVID-19 vaccines have emerged as a result of the vaccine’s unpredictability. Aims: To study the determinants of the attitudes of healthcare workers (HCWs) to receiving or refusing to receive the vaccine. Methods: The current study adopted an interviewed questionnaire between June and August 2021. A total of 341 HCWs currently working at Assiut University hospitals offered to receive the vaccine were included. Results: Only half of the HCWs (42%) accepted the COVID-19 vaccine. The most common reason that motivated the HCWs was being more susceptible than others to infection (71.8%). On other hand, the common reasons for refusing included: previously contracted the virus (64.8%); did not have time (58.8%); warned by a doctor not to take it (53.8%). Nearly one-third of nonaccepting HCWs depended on television, the Internet, and friends who refused the vaccine for information (p < 0.05). In the final multivariate regression model, there were six significant predictors: sex, job category, chronic disease, being vaccinated for influenza, and using Assiut University hospital staff and the Ministry of Health as sources of information (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Misinformation and negative conceptions are still barriers against achieving the desired rate of vaccination, especially for vulnerable groups such as HCWs.

COVID-19 pandemic spreads worldwide, with more than 100 million positive cases and more than 2 million deaths. From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, several otolaryngologists described many cases of a sudden loss of smell (anosmia) associated with the disease with or without additional symptoms. Anosmia is often the first and sometimes the only sign in the asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19. Still, this disorder is underestimated, and it is not life-threatening. However, it significantly decreases the quality of life. This olfactory dysfunction continues in several cases even after the nasopharyngeal swab was negative. The occurrence of anosmia can be used as a screening tool for COVID-19 patients and can be used to identify these patients to accomplish the isolation and tracking procedures. In this review, we highlighted the possible mechanisms of anosmia in COVID-19 patients, major pathologies and features of anosmia, implications of anosmia in early diagnosis of COVID-19, evaluation of the smell function during COVID-19, and management and treatment options of COVID-19 anosmia.

Until now, there are more than two hundred million confirmed cases of COVID-19 including more than seven million deaths. Clinical trials of all three vaccines authorized for use in the UK (Pfizer–BioNTech, Oxford–AstraZeneca, and Moderna) have reported high vaccine efficacy. This rapid systematic review was initiated because no systematic review had been conducted to determine the safety and efficacy of AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. Evidence acquisition: A systematic search in the following platforms: PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, WOS, and MEDLINE databases for all articles in the English language regarding safety and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was performed. Papers published up to end of June were included. Evidence synthesis: Out of 477 retrieved articles, fifteen are included. All the selected articles are concerned with evaluation of AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. Three of them discussed the effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, while thirteen (one is common with the group of the effectiveness) measured the adverse effects associated with the vaccine. Because thrombosis was recorded as a serious adverse effect developed after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination, it was emphasized in a special group to be analyzed separately. In conclusion: the main message of selected papers was that the value of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination to provide critical protection should be considered higher compared to the significant worldwide burden of the emerging COVID-19 infection. No causal relations were found to link cases- having thrombotic adverse reactions to the vaccine.

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) sampling is important for evaluating the nodal stage of breast cancer when the axillary nodes are clinically free of metastasis. The intraoperative frozen section (IFS) of SLN is used for lymph node assessment. This meta-analysis aims to provide evidence about the diagnostic accuracy and the applicability of IFS of SLN in breast cancer patients. Data were collected by searching PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases for trials matching our eligibility criteria. The statistical analysis included the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and pooled studies’ diagnostic odds ratio outcomes. The analyses were conducted using the Open Meta-analyst software. This meta-analysis pooled the results of 110 studies. The overall sensitivity of IFS for SLN metastasis was 74.7%; 95% CI [72.0, 77.2], P < 0.001. It was 31.4% 95% CI [25.2, 38.3], P < 0.001 for the micro-metastasis, and 90.2%; 95% CI [86.5, 93.0], P < 0.001 for the macro-metastasis. The overall specificity was 99.4%; 95% CI [99.2, 99.6], P < 0.001. The overall positive likelihood ratio was 121.4; 95% CI [87.9, 167.6], P < 0.001, and the overall negative likelihood ratio was 0.226; 95% CI [0.186, 0.274], P < 0.001. The overall diagnostic odds ratio of IFS for diagnosing SLN metastasis was 569.5; 95% CI [404.2, 802.4], P < 0.001. The intraoperative frozen section of SLN has good sensitivity for diagnosing breast cancer macro-metastasis. However, the sensitivity is low for micro-metastasis. The specificity is very satisfactory.

Dalam sejarahnya, perubahan sosial yang terjadi tidak pernah lepas dari gerakan sosial yang dibangun atas dasar kesadaran kritis para mahasiswa sebagai agen perubahan. Gerakan sosial yang dibangun mahasiswa bukan tanpa alasan, mereka menganggap ada yang timpang dan tidak sesuai dengan nilai-nilai kemanusiaan dan keadilan. Akan tetapi, dewasa ini gerakan mahasiswa semakin meredup dan mengalami degradasi. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengeksplorasi proses dan faktor kemunduran dari gerakan sosial mahasiswa. Penelitian ini merupakan jenis penelitian kualitatif deskriptif dengan menggunakan pendekatan ambivalensi Homi Bhabha. Pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan kajian pustaka, pengamatan terhadap fenomena yang terjadi, selanjutnya dianalisis menggunakan pendekatan ambivalensi perspektif Homi Bhabha. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa dalam hal meredupnya gerakan mahasiswa, terjadi proses yang berakibat pada subjek mengalami kondisi kebimbangan. Hal ini terjadi dikarenakan subjek dipengaruhi oleh lingkungan aktivis mahasiswa dan membuat subjek meniru atau berkamuflase dengan budaya lingkungannya. Subjek menginginkan perubahan sosial dengan membangun gerakan sosial. Akan tetapi, di sisi lain mereka tidak memiliki analisis yang tajam terhadap persoalan sosial yang dituntutnya. Alhasil, subjek mengalami ambivalensi yang berujung pada mereduksinya nilai gerakan mahasiswa antara mengintrupsi sistem atau memenuhi lifestyle. Maka dari itu, subjek membutuhkan suatu analisis tajam serta pengetahuan mendalam untuk membangun kesadaran kritis yang mampu menciptakan gerakan kolektif dalam menginstrupsi sistem dan juga sebagai upaya mengembalikan marwah dari gerakan sosial mahasiswa.

No abstract