Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has put a strain on regular healthcare worldwide. In the Netherlands, the national screening programs, including for breast cancer, were halted temporarily. This posed a challenge to breast cancer care, because ∼40% of cases are detected through national screening. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the surgical care of patients with breast cancer in the Netherlands. Materials and Methods The present multicenter retrospective cohort study investigated the effects of COVID-19 on patients with breast cancer who had undergone surgery from March 9 to May 17, 2020. The primary endpoints were the number of surgical procedures performed during the study period, tumor characteristics, surgery type, and route of referral. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative complications during the study period. Results A total of 217 consecutive patients with breast cancer requiring surgery were included. We found an overall decrease in the number of patients with breast cancer who were undergoing surgery. The most significant decline was seen in surgery for T1-T2 and N0 tumors. A decline in the number of referrals from both the national screening program and general practitioners was observed. The incidence of postoperative complications remained stable during the study period. Conclusions The temporary halt of the national screening program for breast cancer resulted in fewer surgical procedures during the study period and a pronounced decrease in surgery of the lower tumor stages.

Background Ileus is common after elective colorectal surgery, and is associated with increased adverse events and prolonged hospital stay. The aim was to assess the role of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for reducing ileus after surgery. Methods A prospective multicentre cohort study was delivered by an international, student‐ and trainee‐led collaborative group. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The primary outcome was time to gastrointestinal recovery, measured using a composite measure of bowel function and tolerance to oral intake. The impact of NSAIDs was explored using Cox regression analyses, including the results of a centre‐specific survey of compliance to enhanced recovery principles. Secondary safety outcomes included anastomotic leak rate and acute kidney injury. Results A total of 4164 patients were included, with a median age of 68 (i.q.r. 57–75) years (54·9 per cent men). Some 1153 (27·7 per cent) received NSAIDs on postoperative days 1–3, of whom 1061 (92·0 per cent) received non‐selective cyclo‐oxygenase inhibitors. After adjustment for baseline differences, the mean time to gastrointestinal recovery did not differ significantly between patients who received NSAIDs and those who did not (4·6 versus 4·8 days; hazard ratio 1·04, 95 per cent c.i. 0·96 to 1·12; P = 0·360). There were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rate (5·4 versus 4·6 per cent; P = 0·349) or acute kidney injury (14·3 versus 13·8 per cent; P = 0·666) between the groups. Significantly fewer patients receiving NSAIDs required strong opioid analgesia (35·3 versus 56·7 per cent; P < 0·001). Conclusion NSAIDs did not reduce the time for gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery, but they were safe and associated with reduced postoperative opioid requirement.

Background Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication of major gastrointestinal surgery with an impact on short- and long-term survival. No validated system for risk stratification exists for this patient group. This study aimed to validate externally a prognostic model for AKI after major gastrointestinal surgery in two multicentre cohort studies. Methods The Outcomes After Kidney injury in Surgery (OAKS) prognostic model was developed to predict risk of AKI in the 7 days after surgery using six routine datapoints (age, sex, ASA grade, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, planned open surgery and preoperative use of either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker). Validation was performed within two independent cohorts: a prospective multicentre, international study (‘IMAGINE’) of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery (2018); and a retrospective regional cohort study (‘Tayside’) in major abdominal surgery (2011–2015). Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict risk of AKI, with multiple imputation used to account for data missing at random. Prognostic accuracy was assessed for patients at high risk (greater than 20 per cent) of postoperative AKI. Results In the validation cohorts, 12.9 per cent of patients (661 of 5106) in IMAGINE and 14.7 per cent (106 of 719 patients) in Tayside developed 7-day postoperative AKI. Using the OAKS model, 558 patients (9.6 per cent) were classified as high risk. Less than 10 per cent of patients classified as low-risk developed AKI in either cohort (negative predictive value greater than 0.9). Upon external validation, the OAKS model retained an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve of range 0.655–0.681 (Tayside 95 per cent c.i. 0.596 to 0.714; IMAGINE 95 per cent c.i. 0.659 to 0.703), sensitivity values range 0.323–0.352 (IMAGINE 95 per cent c.i. 0.281 to 0.368; Tayside 95 per cent c.i. 0.253 to 0.461), and specificity range 0.881–0.890 (Tayside 95 per cent c.i. 0.853 to 0.905; IMAGINE 95 per cent c.i. 0.881 to 0.899). Conclusion The OAKS prognostic model can identify patients who are not at high risk of postoperative AKI after gastrointestinal surgery with high specificity. Presented to Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) International Conference 2018 (Edinburgh, UK), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) International Conference 2018 (Nice, France), SARS (Society of Academic and Research Surgery) 2020 (Virtual, UK).

Objectives: To systematically review studies on the effect of treatment of subjective tinnitus in children.Data Sources: We searched for studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, after which additional studies were hand searched using Scopus databases. The methods are described in the study protocol, which has been registered in the PROSPERO register. PRISMA guidelines were followed in the reporting of this study.Eligibility Criteria: We considered for inclusion randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case reports, and case series, with tinnitus as primary outcome in children (0–18 years old) with acute or chronic subjective tinnitus. We excluded studies in which both children and adults participated but outcomes were not specifically reported for children, as well as animal studies, studies with a non-original study design and studies about children with pulsatile or objective tinnitus.Data Selection: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and quality, collected and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed in case of homogeneous outcomes.Results: The search yielded a total of 4,447 studies. Of these, 147 eligible studies were selected. One case report and five observational studies met the eligibility criteria. Three studies applied counseling and (simplified-)TRT and reported improvement in tinnitus outcome in 68 out of 82 children after 3–6 months of treatment. Two studies used pharmacological treatments and reported improvement in 74 out of 86 patients after 10 days to 3 months of treatment. One study reported the outcome of biofeedback therapy, describing an improvement in tinnitus loudness and annoyance after 2 months of treatment.Conclusion: Due to the high risk of bias of the included studies, we cannot determine the effectiveness of the treatment of subjective tinnitus in children. Also, owing to brief follow-up periods, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding long-term effects. Randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up periods are necessary to provide substantial evidence of the effects of therapies for children affected by tinnitus. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier [CRD42020178134].