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.

The micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) is a recently introduced percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) technique that is performed through a 4.8 Fr all-seeing needle. We aimed to measure the intrarenal pelvic pressure (IPP) during microperc and compare it with the levels of conventional PNL. A total of 20 patients with 1- to 3-cm renal calculi resistant to shock wave lithotripsy were treated either with microperc (Group-1, n: 10) or conventional PNL (Group-2, n: 10) by the same surgical team. The IPP was measured during different stages (entrance into the collecting system, stone fragmentation, and before termination) of the procedures by an urodynamic machine using the 6 Fr ureteral catheter. All the variables were statistically compared between the two groups. The demographic values of the patients were similar. The operation time and duration of hospitalization were significantly prolonged in conventional PNL group (p = 0.034, p = 0.01, respectively). The mean drop in hematocrit levels was significantly lower in microperc group (3.5 ± 1.5 vs. 1.8 ± 0.8; p = 0.004). The IPP was significantly higher in microperc group during all steps of the procedure. The highest level of the IPP was measured as 30.3 ± 3.9 and 20.1 ± 3.1 mmHg in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively (p < 0.0001). However, the complication and success rates were found comparable. In conclusion, we demonstrate that the level of IPP is significantly increased during microperc compared to conventional PNL. Microperc should be used cautiously in cases with impaired drainage of the collecting system.

No abstract

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and erectile dysfunction (ED) are frequently encountered in ageing males. We compared the efficacy of alfuzosin 10 mg alone or in combination with sildenafil 50 mg in the treatment of LUTS due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. One hundred male patients older than 45 years were randomized to two groups containing 50 patients each; one group receiving alfuzosin 10 mg and the other group alfuzosin 10 mg combined with sildenafil 50 mg. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), maximum flow rate (Q(max)), prostate volume and post-void residual urine were evaluated. The mean age was 60.2 ± 17.8. Mean data of evaluated parameters in both groups at the end of 3rd month compared with baseline values are given respective order as; 5.1 (26.8%) and 5.8 (28.2%) points decreases in IPSS; 1.6 (41.1%) and 1.8 (45%) points decreases in QoL; and 3.4 (29.6%) and 3.4 (33%) points increases in Q(max) . The outcomes of our study cannot be interpreted in such a way to report that alpha blocker-PDE5 inhibitor combination has a better efficacy than alpha blocker treatment alone in patients with LUTS.