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.

No abstract

Background:The excellent freedom of movement and range of this flap when based on a the nasolabial perforator flap have not been sufficiently explored. In this study, along with demonstrating the other key advantages of this flap over its traditional counterpart, we will endeavour to fill these lacunae in the available literature.Materials and Methods:From February 2009 to February 2012, twenty patients with nasal defects were repaired with a nasolabial perforator flap in the Department of Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. Of these, two patients (10%) underwent the procedure bilaterally. Thus, a total of 22 nasolabial perforator flap procedures were carried out. Prospectively, collected clinical records and data of each patient were retrospectively retrieved and reviewed to study the nasal defect and surgery done.Results:All the twenty (100%) patients had good functional and aesthetic outcome. All patients who had nasal stenosis preoperatively had very good improvement in the patency of the nasal passages, breathing and nasal blockage with complete recovery of symptoms. The patients were entirely satisfied with the functional recovery.Conclusions:The reliability and versatility of the nasolabial perforator flap exceed its recognised application in reconstruction of nasal defects and it must form a part of every plastic surgeon's armamentarium.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose To explore the epidemiological and clinical profile of patients admitted to the trauma and emergency department (TED) of a tertiary care hospital due to tropical cyclone Fani and highlight the challenges faced by the hospital in this natural disaster. Methods A retrospective study was conducted in the TED in the affected zone. Data of all victims affected by the cyclone Fani on May 3, 2019 were obtained from disaster records and medical case sheets. All patients except death on admission were included. Clinical variables included anatomical sites and severity of injuries which was assessed by revised trauma score (RTS) and injury severity score (ISS). Trauma injury severity score (TRISS) was also calculated. Results Of 75 patients, 74 were included and the other one was brought dead and thus excluded. The age, median ± interquartile range (IQ), was 41.0 (27.7–53.0) years. The male to female ratio was 2:1. Most of the wounded were transported by the police control room vans on day 1: first 10 h, 50.0%; 10-24 h, 20.3%. The median ± IQ range of RTS, ISS and TRISS were 20 (14–28), 7.84 (7.841–7.841), and 97.4 (91.6–98.9), respectively. Simple external injury was the dominant injury type. Polytrauma (ISS >15) was seen in 67% cases and spine injury in 14% cases (7% cervical and 7% thoracolumbar). Injury causes included sharp flying objects (broken pieces of glasses and asbestos) in 31% cases, followed by fall of trees in 20.3%. Twenty-four patients were discharged after primary treatment, 30 admitted to the indoor-trauma ward or intensive care unit and 20 deferred or transferred to another center. There was no in-house mortality. Challenges were related to electricity failure, mobile network breakdown, infrastructure collapse, and delay in expertise repair from outside due to airport/railway closure. Conclusion In cyclonic storm like Fani, sharp flying objects, fall of trees/poles and collapsing walls constitute the common mode of injuries causing harm to more than one body regions. Polytrauma was seen in the majority of patients though external injury was the commonest. The affected hospital had the uphill task of treating hospitalized patients as well as disaster victims.

Background Liposuction is the most accepted technique for treatment of gynecomastia at present with or without residual gland tissue excision. Conventional liposuction uses incisions for introduction of cannula, made usually at the inframammary crease or axilla resulting in consequent scars. Cross-chest liposuction technique was introduced to avoid these additional scars and improve the aesthetic outcome. This study aimed to evaluate the difference between aesthetic outcome of conventional liposuction and cross-chest liposuction in treatment of gynecomastia. Method A prospective comparative study between 2 groups with 15 patients in each was conducted, one with conventional and the other cross-chest liposuction. Excision of residual gland tissue was performed through circum-areolar incision in both the groups. Aesthetic outcome was evaluated in both the groups using Likert scale and compared. Result The mean age of the patients was 22.6 years and the mean duration of presentation was 8.13 years. Satisfaction rate with conventional and cross-chest liposuction was 80% and 86%, respectively, as assessed by the patients. The rate was 80% and 77%, respectively, in both the groups as assessed by independent observer. The complication rate was 13.3% in conventional and 20% in cross-chest group. The difference in outcome was not statistically significant between two groups. Difference between the mean Likert scores of pre-operative and post-operative satisfaction was statistically significant for both the techniques. Conclusion The conventional and the cross-chest liposuction, both yield comparable results when used for treatment of gynecomastia in terms of aesthetic outcome. Level of Evidence III This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266