Purpose The aim of this paper is to investigate the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on general surgical emergencies as well as analyzing the effectiveness of measures taken in reducing the incidence of COVID-19 in patients and healthcare professionals. Methods Patients who underwent emergency surgery between the pandemic period of March 14th to May 15th 2020 and within the same period from the previous year were reviewed retrospectively. COVID-19 incidence in patients and health professionals working in the general surgery department during these periods was questioned. Results Demographic data were similar between the two time periods. The number of patients who underwent surgery in the pandemic group ( n = 103) was lower than the control group ( n = 252). There was a 59.1% reduction in emergency surgeries. The biggest decreases were the admissions of incarcerated hernia, uncomplicated appendicitis and acute cholecystitis (92%, 81.3%, 47.3%, respectively). During the pandemic, an increase was of patient rates who underwent surgery for complicated appendicitis and AMIO ( p = 0.001, p = 0.019, respectively). The rate of mortality was higher in patients who underwent emergency surgery during pandemic ( p = 0.049). The results of COVID-19 screening were positive in 6 (6/103, 5.82%) patients undergoing emergency surgery. None of the doctors working in the ward were infected with COVID-19 infection (0/20). The screening tests were positive in only two nurses working on the ward (2/24, 8.33%). Conclusion In this and similar pandemics, we suggest that a new algorithm is necessary to approach emergencies and the results of this study can contribute to that end.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair is a well-known approach to inguinal hernia repair. The present study aims to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the TEP technique under general anesthesia (GA) and epidural anesthesia (EA). Materials and Methods: The patients were divided into 2 groups as those undergoing TEP under EA (Group 1) and those undergoing TEP under GA (Group 2). The 2 patient groups were compared in terms of sex, age, body mass index data, duration of surgery, total operation time, patient satisfaction, VAS scores (1, 4, 12, and 24 h), length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. Results: The number of patients operated under EA (Group 1) was 30, and the number of patients operated under GA (Group 2) was 32. Only in the postoperative first hour VAS scores was statistically significantly less and the need for analgesia evaluated in both groups was found to be statistically significantly lower in Group 1 (P<0.001). The mean operation time was recorded as 62 and 46.50 minutes in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, which was statistically significantly shorter in Group 2 (P<0.001). There was no difference between the 2 groups regarding complications, hospital stay, recovery, or surgery time. Conversion rate is 0 in both groups. Conclusions: Lower postoperative VAS scores and lower postoperative VAS scores and lower analgesic used requirements of EA, it is thought that EA can be safely applied in the TEP procedure as an alternative in patients who cannot be administered GA.