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.

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and potential usefulness of near-infrared imaging (NIR) with indocyanine green (ICG) to assess ureteral perfusion after conservative surgery (ureterolysis or nodule removal) for ureteral endometriosis. Any changes to the surgical plan regarding intraoperative ureteral stent placement after NIR-ICG evaluation and early postoperative outcomes were recorded. Design: Prospective case series study. Setting: Tertiary level referral center for endometriosis and minimally invasive gynecology. Patients: Consecutive symptomatic women scheduled for laparoscopic conservative ureteral surgery for ureteral endometriosis. Interventions: After ureterolysis or nodule removal, residual perfusion of the ureters with regular caliber and peristalsis was evaluated through NIR-ICG imaging. Ureteral perfusion grade was defined as absent, irregular, or regular. Time required for NIR-ICG assessment, interoperator agreement regarding ureteral perfusion grade, any changes to the surgical plan after NIR-ICG evaluation, perioperative complications, and clinical-radiologic outcomes at early follow-up were recorded. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 31 ureters were examined with NIR-ICG imaging after conservative ureteral procedures. ICG assessment required 5.4 + 2.3 minutes. No complications related to fluorescence imaging were observed. Local ischemia supporting ureteral stent placement was suspected in 5 ureters (16.1%) at white light. Of these, 2 (40.0%) presented regular fluorescence; thus, ureteral stent placement was avoided. In the remaining 3 (60.0%), NIR-ICG confirmed irregular or absent fluorescence, requiring ureteral stent placement. Interoperator agreement regarding NIR-ICG evaluation was high. At a 3-month follow-up, all procedures were clinically and radiologically successful. Conclusion: NIR-ICG imaging after conservative surgery for ureteral endometriosis seems to be a feasible, safe, and useful tool to assess ureteral perfusion and guide surgical decision, together with other visual cues at white light. However, this approach needs to be validated by further larger and controlled studies.

Introduction The complete surgical removal of endometriosis lesions is not always feasible because some implants may be very small or hidden. The use of intraoperative near‐infrared radiation (NIR) imaging after intravenous injection of indocyanine green (ICG) coupled with robotic technical advances, including three‐dimensional (3D) and high‐resolution vision, might improve detection rates. Material and methods This is a retrospective, multicenter case‐control study (Canadian Task Force classification II‐2) on medical records of women with endometriosis who underwent surgery at the Catholic University of Rome (Controls) and the University of Bologna (Cases) between January 2016 and March 2018. Surgical and post‐surgical data from the procedures were collected. We compared the visual detection rate of endometriotic lesions using near‐infrared radiation imaging after intravenous injection of indocyanine green (NIR‐ICG) in Real 3D (Cases) with the 2D Camera approach (Controls) in symptomatic women with pelvic endometriosis. Results Twenty cases were matched as closely as possible with 27 controls. The numbers of suspected lesions identified both with the white light and the NIR‐ICG approach were 116 and 70 in the Controls (2D) and Cases (3D), respectively. Among them, 16 of 116 controls (13.8%) and 12 of 70 cases (17.1%) were identified using only NIR‐ICG imaging and collected as occult lesions (P = .536). The overall NIR‐ICG lesion identification showed a positive predictive value of 97.8%, negative predictive value of 82.3%, sensitivity of 82.0%, and specificity of 97.9% for the Control group, and a positive predictive value of 100%, negative predictive value of 97.1%, sensitivity of 97.1%, and specificity of 100% for the Case group, confirming that NIR‐ICG imaging is a good diagnostic and screening test (P = .643 and P = .791, according to the Cohen κ tests, respectively for the laparoscopic and robotic groups). Conclusions The few differences observed did not seem to be clinically relevant, making the 2 procedures comparable in terms of the ability to visually detect endometriotic lesions. Further prospective trials are needed to confirm our results.

Background: Laparoscopic gynaecological surgery is commonly performed under general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation. In general surgery, locoregional anaesthesia was applied to laparoscopic procedures, increasing minimally invasive surgery advantages. Aims: To assess and compare postoperative pain after laparoscopic adnexal procedures for benign conditions under spinal anaesthesia (SA) versus general anaesthesia (GA). Furthermore, anaesthesiologic, surgical and clinical data were evaluated in both groups. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective cohort study performed in a tertiary level referral centre for minimally invasive gynaecological surgery (Gynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, University of Bologna). Women scheduled for adnexal laparoscopic surgery for benign conditions between February and May 2019 were assigned to receive either SA or GA with endotracheal intubation. A sample size of 13 women per group was needed to detect a 2-point difference in pain scores. Main findings: 13 women were enrolled in the SA arm, 15 in the GA arm. In the SA cohort, the most common intraoperative adverse event was shoulder pain, reported by 3/12 women. At 1, 8, 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery pain was significantly lower in the SA arm (p < .05). Patients submitted to SA experienced no need for opioid drugs administration, unlike those receiving GA. Patients' mobilization and return of bowel function were noted significantly earlier in the SA group (p < .05). Conclusions: SA is a feasible, safe and effective anaesthesiologic technique for laparoscopic gynaecological procedures for benign conditions, allowing a better control of postoperative pain. Women undergoing SA achieve earlier mobilization and bowel canalization. During the Covid-19 pandemics, SA could be useful in reducing the need for invasive procedures on respiratory tract.