No abstract

Background The spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus, which causes COVID-19 disease, profoundly impacted the surgical community. Recommendations have been published to manage patients needing surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey, under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery, aims to analyze how Italian surgeons have changed their practice during the pandemic. Methods The authors designed an online survey that was circulated for completion to the Italian departments of general surgery registered in the Italian Ministry of Health database in December 2020. Questions were divided into three sections: hospital organization, screening policies, and safety profile of the surgical operation. The investigation periods were divided into the Italian pandemic phases I (March–May 2020), II (June–September 2020), and III (October–December 2020). Results Of 447 invited departments, 226 answered the survey. Most hospitals were treating both COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. The reduction in effective beds dedicated to surgical activity was significant, affecting 59% of the responding units. 12.4% of the respondents in phase I, 2.6% in phase II, and 7.7% in phase III reported that their surgical unit had been closed. 51.4%, 23.5%, and 47.8% of the respondents had at least one colleague reassigned to non-surgical COVID-19 activities during the three phases. There has been a reduction in elective (> 200 procedures: 2.1%, 20.6% and 9.9% in the three phases, respectively) and emergency (< 20 procedures: 43.3%, 27.1%, 36.5% in the three phases, respectively) surgical activity. The use of laparoscopy also had a setback in phase I (25.8% performed less than 20% of elective procedures through laparoscopy). 60.6% of the respondents used a smoke evacuation device during laparoscopy in phase I, 61.6% in phase II, and 64.2% in phase III. Almost all responders (82.8% vs. 93.2% vs. 92.7%) in each analyzed period did not modify or reduce the use of high-energy devices. Conclusion This survey offers three faithful snapshots of how the surgical community has reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic during its three phases. The significant reduction in surgical activity indicates that better health policies and more evidence-based guidelines are needed to make up for lost time and surgery not performed during the pandemic.

Six cases of combined heart and kidney transplantation with organs from the same donor are reported. All six patients suffered from primary end-stage kidney disease, two chronic glomerulonephritis, two glomerulosclerosis, one chronic pyelonephritis and one with unknown etiology. Four patients were undergoing hemodialysis. Three patients had the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease, one dilated cardiomyopathy secondary to congenital heart disease, two idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Five were males and one female. Ages ranged from 38 to 54 years. On-site or short-distance young donors with normal renal function and good cardiac function necessitating low inotropic support were selected. ABO compatibility was used exclusively. Orthotopic heart transplantation was performed first. During cardiopulmonary bypass, hemofiltration was used in four cases. Kidney transplantation was performed immediately after the closure of the chest. Diuresis was immediate in all cases. No cardiac rejection was documented at EMB. Renal function normalized within few days with no signs of kidney rejection. All six patients are alive and well with normal cardiac and renal function at a mean follow-up of 43 months. Patients and donors selection associated with a proper surgical strategy and prompt immunosuppressive therapy administration make the combined heart and kidney transplantation an effective therapeutic option.

Twenty-two patients underwent 23 late reoperations after total correction of tetralogy of Fallot from 1965 to 1990. Indications for reoperation included: isolated ventricular septal defect (VSD) in 9 patients (41%), isolated right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) obstruction in 3 patients (13.7%), VSD associated with a RVOT obstruction in 7 patients (31.8%), aneurysm of the pericardial RVOT patch in 1 patient (4.5%), aortic insufficiency with a residual VSD in 1 patient (4.5%), and tricuspid regurgitation in 1 patient (4.5%). The reoperation consisted of closure of a residual VSD in 17 patients, relief of a RVOT gradient in 11, insertion of a RVOT valve in 4, tricuspid valve replacement in 1 (reoperated twice), aortic valve replacement in 1, and excision of a RVOT aneurysm in 1. Two patients died in hospital (9%) but there were no early deaths in the 11 patients reoperated upon after 1978. Mean follow-up period was 135 months. There were 2 late deaths. The actuarial 20-year survival was 87%. Of the surviving patients, 16 (89%) were in New York Heart Association class I, 1 (5.5%) was in class II, and one (5.5%) was in class III. One patient required a second reoperation for tricuspid bioprosthesis degeneration and 1 patient had moderate recurrent RVOT gradient due to calcified pulmonary bioprosthesis. This study tends to support the policy of recommending reoperation in the presence of surgically significant residual defects. Reoperation is associated with a low early mortality and good long-term results.

No abstract