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.

Esophageal cancer has been reported to be the seventh most common cancer and the sixth most common cause of mortality. Use of advanced diagnostic techniques has increased the detection of preoperative metastases and resulted in better patient selection for further management by curative surgery. We carried out a study to evaluate the outcome of esophagectomy at our institute in terms of acute leak, mortality and hospital stay. We also looked at various preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative risk factors contributing to leak after esophagectomy.We evaluated 589 patients during the period from January 2009 to December 2019. All these patients underwent elective esophagectomy for esophageal cancer at our hospital. Out of these, leak was seen in 30 patients (5.1%). We found no statistically significant difference when evaluating patient and tumour characteristics of patients who developed leak against those who did not. We also didn't find any significant difference in intraoperative or postoperative factors between the two groups.Proper preoperative evaluation and optimization are necessary to overcome various patient comorbidities. On the basis of our study we conclude that when performed in high-volume centers with an adequately trained multi-disciplinary team approach, esophagectomy for carcinoma has a good outcome.

Background: The pandemic affected the day-to-day routine of millions of people, with the healthcare sector being at the frontline.  The surgical units have seen a drastic decrease in the amount of patient load, elective surgical procedures, and consequently a decrease in the quality of surgical training.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a self-structured questionnaire, containing questions about concerns during COVID-19 Pandemic, availability of PPEs and the effect of surgical training during the pandemic, administered on already enrolled surgical trainees of major tertiary care hospitals of the country. A total of 207 surgical trainees were conveniently enrolled in this descriptive study. Results: Out of a total of 207 surgical trainees, 41.7% were first-year residents, 37.9% were second-year, 1.9% were third, 4.4% were forth and 14.1% were fifth-year surgical trainees. 62.6% of doctors reported that their stress levels have increased, most of them were worried about transmitting the infection to their families and vulnerable patients (p<0.01). 56.4% of surgical trainees reported being satisfied with their department’s response to the pandemic, 30.1% doctors said that the testing capacity was insufficient but 60.7% were satisfied with the support of their own hospital. Only 1.9% of doctors were satisfied from their training during the pandemic (p<0.01)Conclusions: The system needs an urgent improvement in the provision of safety measures, an increase in the use of technology for the purpose of training and an easy provision of psychological support to trainees.

No abstract