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.

Objectives: To evaluate comparative outcomes of spinal anesthesia (SA) and general anesthesia (GA) during laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) repair of inguinal hernia. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Register, and bibliographic reference lists. We applied a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators and limits in each of the above databases. Postoperative pain assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS), individual and overall perioperative morbidity, procedure time and time taken to normal activities, were the outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effects models. Results: We identified 5 comparative studies reporting a total of 1518 patients (2134 hernia) evaluating outcomes of laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair under SA (n=1277 patients, 1877 hernia) or GA (n=241 patients, 257 hernia). SA was associated with significantly lower post-operative pain assessed by VAS at 12 hours [mean difference (MD): −0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), −0.45 to −0.20; P<0.0001] and shorter time to normal activities (MD: −0.30; 95% CI, −0.48 to −0.11; P=0.002) compared with GA. However, it significantly increased risk of urinary retention [odds ratio (OR): 4.02; 95% CI, 1.32-12.24; P=0.01], hypotension (OR: 3.97; 95% CI, 1.57-10.39; P=0.004), headache (OR: 7.65; 95% CI, 1.98-29.48, P=0.003), and procedure time (MD: 3.82; 95% CI, 1.22-6.42; P=0.004). There was no significant difference in VAS at 24 hours (MD: 0.06; 95% CI, −0.06 to 0.17; P=0.34), seroma (OR: 1.54; 95% CI, 0.73-3.26; P=0.26), wound infection (OR: 1.03; 95% CI, 0.45-2.37; P=0.94), and vomiting (OR: 0.84; 95% CI, 0.39-1.83; P=0.66) between the 2 groups. There was a nonsignificant decrease in overall morbidity in favor of GA (OR: 1.84; 95% CI, 0.77-4.40; P=0.17) which became significant following sensitivity analysis (OR: 2.59; 95% CI, 1.23-5.49; P=0.01). Conclusions: Although TEP inguinal hernia repair under SA may reduce pain in early postoperative period, it seems to be associated with increased postoperative morbidity and longer procedure time. It may be an appropriate anesthetic modality in selected patients who are considered high risk for GA. Higher level of evidence is needed.

Background: Social media has an increasing role within professional surgical practice, including the publishing and engagement of academic literature. This study aims to analyze the relationship between social media use and traditional and alternative metrics among academic surgical journals. Method: Journals were identified through the InCites Journal Citation Reports 2019, and their impact factor, h-index, and CiteScore were noted. Social media platforms were examined, and Twitter activity interrogated between 1 January to 31 December 2019. Healthcare Social Graph score and an aggregated Altmetric Attention Score were also calculated for each journal. Statistical analysis was carried out to look at the correlation between traditional metrics, Twitter activity, and altmetrics. Results: Journals with a higher impact factor were more likely to use a greater number of social media platforms (R 2 ¼ 0.648; P < .0001). Journals with dedicated Twitter profiles had a higher impact factor than journals without (median, 2.96 vs 1.88; Mann-Whitney U ¼ 390; P < .001); however, over a 1-year period (2018e2019) having a Twitter presence did not alter impact factor (Mann-Whitney U ¼ 744.5; P ¼ .885). Increased Twitter activity was positively correlated with impact factor. Longitudinal analysis over 6 years suggested cumulative tweets correlated with an increased impact factor (R 2 ¼ 0.324, P ¼ .004). Novel alternative measures including Healthcare Social Graph score (R 2 ¼ 0.472, P ¼ .005) and Altmetric Attention Score (R 2 ¼ 0.779, P ¼ .001) positively correlated with impact factor. Conclusion: Higher impact factor is associated with social media presence and activity, particularly on Twitter, with long-term activity being of particular importance. Modern alternative metrics correlate with impact factor. This relationship is complex, and future studies should look to understand this further.

Backgrounds Colorectal liver metastases were historically considered a contraindication to liver transplantation, but dismal outcomes for those with metastatic colorectal cancer and advancements in liver transplantation (LT) have led to a renewed interest in the topic. We aim to compare the current evidence for liver transplantation for non-resectable colorectal liver metastases (NRCLM) with the current standard treatment of palliative chemotherapy. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of proportions was conducted following screening of MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and CENTRAL for studies reporting liver transplantation for colorectal liver metastases. Post-operative outcomes measured included one-, three- and five-year survival, overall survival, disease-free survival and complication rate. Results Three non-randomised studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting a total of 48 patients receiving LT for NRCLM. Survival at one-, three- and five-years was 83.3–100%, 58.3–80% and 50–80%, respectively, with no significant difference detected (p = 0.22, p = 0.48, p = 0.26). Disease-free survival was 35–56% with the most common site of recurrence being lung. Thirteen out of fourteen deaths were due to disease recurrence. Conclusion Although current evidence suggests a survival benefit conferred by LT in NRCLM compared to palliative chemotherapy, the ethical implications of organ availability and allocation demand rigorous justification. Concomitant improvements in the management of patients following liver resection and of palliative chemotherapy regimens is paramount.