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

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.

IntroductionIntravitreal injection of ranibizumab has become one of the most commonly performed ophthalmic procedures. It is timely to conduct an evaluation of the injection procedure from the patient’s perspective so as to determine ways to improve patient experience. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively describe patients’ experiences of the different stages of the intravitreal injection procedure and provide suggestions for improvement.MethodFollowing intravitreal injection, patients were administered a questionnaire to score the distress felt for each of ten parts of the whole injection process from the initial waiting to the final instillation of topical antibiotic at the end. A score of higher than 4 was regarded as significantly unpleasant. The proportion of scores above 4 for each step was used to evaluate the relative distress experienced by patients for the different parts of the procedure.ResultsA total of 42 patients were surveyed. The step with the highest percentage of patients scoring more than 4 was the injection step (19%). However, cumulatively, the steps relating to the application of the drape, the speculum, and the removal of drape accounted for 53% of scores greater than 4.ConclusionThere is considerable variation in how patients tolerate different stages of the injection procedure. The needle entry was the most unpleasant step followed by the draping steps cumulatively. Use of subconjunctival anesthesia, a perforated drape, and alternative lid exclusion devices may help to improve the patient’s tolerability of the procedure and experience.

GDD surgery can work adequately in children in the long term. A relatively high complications rate should be expected, but in most cases these can be managed successfully. Early recognition of complications is necessary to ensure a good outcome.

Patients with severe OSD often have glaucoma that is refractive to medical therapy. Furthermore, the surgical success of glaucoma filtering surgery is compromised in patients with scarring and inflammation of the conjunctiva. The term we postulate is "OSD exacerbated glaucoma." This is the first study to suggest that the use of a combination approach comprising medical treatment to manage the OSD in patients with primary open angle glaucoma may lead to an improvement in the IOP control and the management of glaucoma.

CLMK has a poorer outcome in a deployed military environment when compared to the civilian setting. Increased awareness of the health risks of contact lens wear together with standardised treatment regimens based on improved pathogen detection using molecular diagnostics have improved outcomes.

We present a case of a 67-year-old female who presented with a twelve-month history of progressive blurred vision in both eyes. The patient was on hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice a day for eight years for the treatment of scarring alopecia. Two years prior to presenting, the patient was found to have chronic kidney disease stage 3 secondary to hypertension. Examination revealed bilateral reduced visual acuities with attenuated arterioles and pigmentary changes on retinal assessment. Goldmann visual fields showed grossly constricted fields in both eyes. The patient was diagnosed with retinal toxicity secondary to hydroxychloroquine probably potentiated by renal impairment. Risk factors for retinal toxicity secondary to hydroxychloroquine can be broadly divided into dose-related and patient-related factors. Our patient developed severe retinal toxicity despite being on the recommended daily dose (400 mg per day). Although retinal toxicity at this dose has been documented, the development of renal impairment without dose adjustment or close monitoring of visual function is likely to have potentiated retinal toxicity. This case highlights the need to monitor renal function in patients on hydroxychloroquine. Should renal impairment develop, either the drug should be stopped or the dose reduced with close monitoring of visual function by an ophthalmologist.