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.

Recommendations1. Examine a patient with diabetes annually for the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD); this should include, at a minimum, taking a history and palpating foot pulses. (GRADE strength of recommendation: strong; quality of evidence: low) 2. Evaluate a patient with diabetes and a foot ulcer for the presence of PAD.Determine, as part of this examination, ankle or pedal Doppler arterial waveforms; measure both ankle systolic pressure and systolic ankle brachial index (ABI). (strong; low) 3. We recommend the use of bedside non-invasive tests to exclude PAD. No single modality has been shown to be optimal. Measuring ABI (with <0.9 considered abnormal) is useful for the detection of PAD. Tests that largely exclude PAD are the presence of ABI 0.9-1.3, toe brachial index ≥0.75 and the presence of triphasic pedal Doppler arterial waveforms. (strong; low) 4. In patients with a foot ulcer in diabetes and PAD, no specific symptoms or signs of PAD reliably predict healing of the ulcer. However, one of the following simple bedside tests should be used to inform the patient and healthcare professional about the healing potential of the ulcer. Any of the following findings increases the pre-test probability of healing by at least 25%: a skin perfusion pressure ≥40 mmHg, a toe pressure ≥30 mmHg or a transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO 2 ) ≥25 mmHg. (strong; moderate) 5. Consider urgent vascular imaging and revascularisation in patients with a foot ulcer in diabetes where the toe pressure is <30 mmHg or the TcPO 2 <25 mmHg. (strong; low) 6. Consider vascular imaging and revascularisation in all patients with a foot ulcer in diabetes and PAD, irrespective of the results of bedside tests, when the ulcer does not improve within 6 weeks despite optimal management. (strong; low) 7. Diabetic microangiopathy should not be considered to be the cause of poor wound healing in patients with a foot ulcer. (strong; low) 8. In patients with a non-healing ulcer with either an ankle pressure <50 mmHg or ABI <0.5, consider urgent vascular imaging and revascularisation. (strong; moderate) 9. Colour Doppler ultrasound, computed tomography angiography, magnetic resonance angiography or intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography can each be used to obtain anatomical information when revascularisation is

Diabetes‐related foot disease results in a major global burden for patients and the healthcare system. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has been producing evidence‐based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetes‐related foot disease since 1999. In 2023, all IWGDF Guidelines have been updated based on systematic reviews of the literature and formulation of recommendations by multidisciplinary experts from all over the world. In addition, a new guideline on acute Charcot neuro‐osteoarthropathy was created. In this document, the IWGDF Practical Guidelines, we describe the basic principles of prevention, classification and management of diabetes‐related foot disease based on the seven IWGDF Guidelines. We also describe the organisational levels to successfully prevent and treat diabetes‐related foot disease according to these principles and provide addenda to assist with foot screening. The information in these practical guidelines is aimed at the global community of healthcare professionals who are involved in the care of persons with diabetes. Many studies around the world support our belief that implementing these prevention and management principles is associated with a decrease in the frequency of diabetes‐related lower‐extremity amputations. The burden of foot disease and amputations is increasing at a rapid rate, and comparatively more so in middle to lower income countries. These guidelines also assist in defining standards of prevention and care in these countries. In conclusion, we hope that these updated practical guidelines continue to serve as a reference document to aid healthcare providers in reducing the global burden of diabetes‐related foot disease.

Background Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is implicated in up to 50% of diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU) and significantly contributes to morbidity and mortality in this population. An evidence-based guideline that is relevant to the national context including consideration of the unique geographical and health care system differences between Australia and other countries, and delivery of culturally safe care to First Nations people, is urgently required to improve outcomes for patients with PAD and DFU in Australia. We aimed to identify and adapt current international guidelines for diagnosis and management of patients with PAD and DFU to develop an updated Australian guideline. Methods Using a panel of national content experts and the National Health and Medical Research Council procedures, the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines were adapted to the Australian context. The guideline adaptation frameworks ADAPTE and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were applied to the IWGDF guideline for PAD by the expert panel. Recommendations were then adopted, adapted or excluded, and specific considerations for implementation, population subgroups, monitoring and future research in Australia were developed with accompanying clinical pathways provided to support guideline implementation. Results Of the 17 recommendations from the IWGDF Guideline on diagnosis, prognosis and management of PAD in patients with diabetes with and without foot ulcers, 16 were adopted for the Australian guideline and one recommendation was adapted due to the original recommendation lacking feasibility in the Australian context. In Australia we recommend all people with diabetes and DFU undergo clinical assessment for PAD with accompanying bedside testing. Further vascular imaging and possible need for revascularisation should be considered for all patients with non-healing DFU irrespective of bedside results. All centres treating DFU should have expertise in, and/or rapid access to facilities necessary to diagnose and treat PAD, and should provide multidisciplinary care post-operatively, including implementation of intensive cardiovascular risk management. Conclusions A guideline containing 17 recommendations for the diagnosis and management of PAD for Australian patients with DFU was developed with accompanying clinical pathways. As part of the adaptation of the IWGDF guideline to the Australian context, recommendations are supported by considerations for implementation, monitoring, and future research priorities, and in relation to specific subgroups including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and geographically remote people. This manuscript has been published online in full with the authorisation of Diabetes Feet Australia and can be found on the Diabetes Feet Australia website: https://www.diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/.

Non-invasive tests for the detection of peripheral artery disease (PAD) among individuals with diabetes mellitus are important to estimate the risk of amputation, ulceration, wound healing and the presence of cardiovascular disease, yet there are no consensus recommendations to support a particular diagnostic modality over another and to evaluate the performance of index non-invasive diagnostic tests against reference standard imaging techniques (magnetic resonance angiography, computed tomography angiography, digital subtraction angiography and colour duplex ultrasound) for the detection of PAD among patients with diabetes. Two reviewers independently screened potential studies for inclusion and extracted study data. Eligible studies evaluated an index test for PAD against a reference test. An assessment of methodological quality was performed using the quality assessment for diagnostic accuracy studies instrument. Of the 6629 studies identified, ten met the criteria for inclusion. In these studies, the patients had a median age of 60-74 years and a median duration of diabetes of 9-24 years. Two studies reported exclusively on patients with symptomatic (ulcerated/infected) feet, two on patients with asymptomatic (intact) feet only, and the remaining six on patients both with and without foot ulceration. Ankle brachial index (ABI) was the most widely assessed index test. Overall, the positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of an ABI threshold <0.9 ranged from 2 to 25 (median 8) and <0.1 to 0.7 (median 0.3), respectively. In patients with neuropathy, the NLR of the ABI was generally higher (two out of three studies), indicating poorer performance, and ranged between 0.3 and 0.5. A toe brachial index <0.75 was associated with a median positive likelihood ratio and NLRs of 3 and ≤ 0.1, respectively, and was less affected by neuropathy in one study. Also, in two separate studies, pulse oximetry used to measure the oxygen saturation of peripheral blood and Doppler wave form analyses had NLRs of 0.2 and <0.1. The reported performance of ABI for the diagnosis of PAD in patients with diabetes mellitus is variable and is adversely affected by the presence of neuropathy. Limited evidence suggests that toe brachial index, pulse oximetry and wave form analysis may be superior to ABI for diagnosing PAD in patients with neuropathy with and without foot ulcers. There were insufficient data to support the adoption of one particular diagnostic modality over another and no comparisons existed with clinical examination. The quality of studies evaluating diagnostic techniques for the detection of PAD in individuals with diabetes is poor. Improved compliance with guidelines for methodological quality is needed in future studies.

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.

Background Diabetes-related foot ulceration (DFU) has a substantial burden on both individuals and healthcare systems both globally and in Australia. There is a pressing need for updated guidelines on wound healing interventions to improve outcomes for people living with DFU. A national expert panel was convened to develop new Australian evidence-based guidelines on wound healing interventions for people with DFU by adapting suitable international guidelines to the Australian context. Methods The panel followed National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) procedures to adapt suitable international guidelines by the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) to the Australian context. The panel systematically screened, assessed and judged all IWGDF wound healing recommendations using ADAPTE and GRADE frameworks for adapting guidelines to decide which recommendations should be adopted, adapted or excluded in the Australian context. Each recommendation had their wording, quality of evidence, and strength of recommendation re-evaluated, plus rationale, justifications and implementation considerations provided for the Australian context. This guideline underwent public consultation, further revision and approval by ten national peak bodies. Results Thirteen IWGDF wound healing recommendations were evaluated in this process. After screening, nine recommendations were adopted and four were adapted after full assessment. Two recommendations had their strength of recommendations downgraded, one intervention was not currently approved for use in Australia, one intervention specified the need to obtain informed consent to be acceptable in Australia, and another was reworded to clarify best standard of care. Overall, five wound healing interventions have been recommended as having the evidence-based potential to improve wound healing in specific types of DFU when used in conjunction with other best standards of DFU care, including sucrose-octasulfate impregnated dressing, systemic hyperbaric oxygen therapy, negative pressure wound therapy, placental-derived products, and the autologous combined leucocyte, platelet and fibrin dressing. The six new guidelines and the full protocol can be found at: https://diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/ Conclusions The IWGDF guideline for wound healing interventions has been adapted to suit the Australian context, and in particular for geographically remote and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This new national wound healing guideline, endorsed by ten national peak bodies, also highlights important considerations for implementation, monitoring, and future research priorities in Australia.

Background: The present study was performed to identify the factors associated with amputation in patients with blunt injuries to the lower limb associated with arterial injury. The ability of a scoring system to predict the outcome was tested. Methods: There were 122 lower limb arterial injuries in I19 patients treated at the Royal Adelaide Hospital in the years 1962-1994. Prognostic factors considered were the site of the injury, the severity of the soft-tissue injury and shock, the presence of associated injuries and a description of the bone or joint injury. The mangled extremity severity score (MESS) was calculated retrospectively for each patient. Results: The outcome was primary amputation in 27 patients, delayed amputation in 36 patients and limb salvage in 59 patients. The seven deaths were all due to associated injuries. Factors associated with amputation were the severity of shock and softtissue injury ( P < 0.01), and tibial artery injury compared with more proximal injury ( P < 0.001). Factors that did not affect outcome included delay before repair, method of fracture fixation, or performance of fasciotomy. Amputation was performed in 48/71 (68%) patients with Gustilo type-IIIC fractures of the tibia. Applying the MESS to our patients resulted in a positive predictive value (PPV) of 71%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 84% and an overall accuracy of prediction of 75%. Conclusions: The major factor determining outcome was the severity of the soft-tissue injury. Progressive necrosis and infection was a major cause of late amputation. The MESS is not sufficiently precise to allow the decision regarding amputation to be made at the initial operation.