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.

Thoracoscopic thymectomy is safe and provides good neurologic outcomes in comparison to the trans-sternal approach. Two predictive factors should be considered for CSR. Further prospective studies with a larger sample size and longer follow-up period are warranted to confirm these results.

Results: The average number of dissected LNs was 22.7±12.8. Tumor recurrence was found in 51.3% and overall mortality was 43.3%. The number of dissected LNs was a prognostic factor for tumor recurrence [HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.96-0.99]. There was a significant difference at the cut-pointed value of 11 dissected LNs for tumor recurrence (HR 2.22, 95% CI: 1.26-3.92). Dissection less than 11 nodes and less than 5 stations indicated a poor prognostic factor for tumor recurrence: for 3-4 stations (HR 3.01, 95% CI: 1.22-7.42) and for 1-2 stations (HR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.04-3.72). The positivity of dissected LNs was also a prognostic factor for tumor recurrence and overall mortality (HR 1.01, 95% CI: 1.01-1.02 and HR 1.01, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03, respectively).Conclusions: Eleven or more LN dissection with at least 5 stations influenced recurrent-free survival.Systematic LN dissection (SLND) should be performed not only to identify the positivity of dissected LNs but also to determine an accurate tumor nodal stage. A larger cohort should be further conducted to support these findings.

The aim of this study was to identify the association between Thailand's insurance types and stage at presentation, surgical approach, tumor recurrence and cancer-specific survival in resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in northern Thailand.Patients and Methods: Medical records of patients with NSCLC who underwent pulmonary resection at Chiang Mai University Hospital from January 2007 through December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups: patients with the Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) or Social Security Scheme (SSS) and patients with the Civil Servant Medical Benefit Scheme (CSMBS) or private insurance (PI). Patient characteristics were assessed. The primary outcome was cancer-specific survival while the secondary outcome was tumor recurrence. Cox's regression and matching propensity score analysis was used to analyze data. Results: This study included 583 patients: 344 with UCS or SSS and 239 with CSMBS or PI. Patients with UCS or SSS were more likely to be active smokers, have a lower percent predicted FEV1, present with higher-stage tumors and worse differentiated tumors, present with tumor necrosis, and undergo an open surgical approach than those with CSMBS or PI. At multivariable analysis of all patients cohort, there were no significant differences in terms of early stage at presentation (adjusted odds ratio (OR adj ) = 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.65-1.37), undergoing lobectomy (OR adj = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.24-1.46), and recurrent-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio (HR adj) =1.20, 95% CI = 0.88-1.65) between groups (UCS/SSS versus CSMBS/PI). However, patients with UCS or SSS had shorter cancer-specific survival (HR adj = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.22-2.15). The results from the propensity score matched patient cohort were not different from those analyses on the full patient cohort. Conclusion: Thai insurance types have an effect on cancer-specific survival. The Thai government should recognize the importance of these differences, and further multi-center studies with a larger sample size are warranted to confirm this result.