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.

No abstract

No abstract

There is no evidence from the results that postoperative narrowing of the adjacent disc and preoperative narrowing of the L5-S1 disc affects the clinical outcome of L4-L5 PLIF.

The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical usefulness of the full can and empty can tests for determining the presence of a torn supraspinatus tendon. The two tests were performed in 143 shoulders of 136 consecutive patients. In each test, the muscle strength was determined by manual muscle testing, and the presence of pain during the maneuver was recorded. We interpreted the tests as positive when there was 1) pain, 2) muscle weakness, or 3) pain or muscle weakness or both. Shoulders were examined by high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging with 95% accuracy for full-thickness rotator cuff tears. There were 35 shoulders with full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus tendon. The accuracy of the tests was the greatest when muscle weakness was interpreted as indicating a torn supraspinatus tendon in both the full can test (75% accurate) and the empty can test (70% accurate). However, there was no significant difference between the accuracy of the tests when this criterion was used. Pain was observed in 62 shoulders (43%) during the full can test and in 71 shoulders (50%) during the empty can test, but the difference was not statistically significant. Muscle weakness should be interpreted as indicative of supraspinatus tendon tear. Using this indicator, both tests are equivalent in terms of accuracy, but considering pain provocation, the full can test may be more beneficial in the clinical setting.