Background The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 pandemic has exposed surgeons to hazardous working conditions, imposing the need for personal protective equipment (PPE) use during surgery. The use of such equipment may affect their non-technical skills, augment fatigue, and affect performance. This study aimed to assess the surgeons' perceptions of the impact of wearing PPE during emergency surgery throughout the pandemic. Methods An international cooperation group conducted an anonymous online survey among surgeons from over 30 countries, to assess perceptions about the impact of PPE use on non-technical skills, overall comfort, decision making, and surgical performance during emergency surgery on COVID-19 patients.Results Responses to the survey (134) were received from surgeons based on 26 countries. The vast majority (72%) were males. More than half of the respondents (54%) felt that their surgical performance was hampered with PPE. Visual impairment was reported by 63%, whereas 54% had communication impediments. Less than half (48%) felt protected with the use of PPE, and the same proportion perceived that the use of such equipment influenced their decision making. Decreased overall comfort was cited by 66%, and 82% experienced increased surgical fatigue. Conclusions Surgeons perceived impediment for both visibility and communication, and other non-technical skills while using PPE on emergency surgery in COVID-19 patients. Their perceived lack of protection and comfort and increased fatigue may have inhibited their optimal surgical performance. More attention should be placed in the design of more user-friendly equipment, given the possibility of a second wave of the pandemic.

On January 30th, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2 (SARSCoV-2) outbreak an international public health emergency, and one day later, the first COVID-19 case was confirmed in Gomera Island, Spain. In the following weeks, the number of cases in several Spanish cities spiked alarmingly, with thousands reported. This new coronavirus outbreak generated unprecedented changes in the Surgery Departments around the world, first in Asia, followed weeks later in Europe and America. This novel scenario of health crisis demanded a change in logistics and organization to guarantee urgent operations onCOVID-19 cases without interrupting the capability to handle emergency and oncologic surgery in the virus-free population, minimizing the viral transmission to staff and other patients. This manuscript aims to summarize the changes adopted by the General and GI Surgery Departments to address this unprecedented clinical scenario, including the restructuring of surgical schedules, staff preparation, and the departments outbreak response protocols and recommendations for surgical techniques and risk management.

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has changed working conditions for emergency surgical teams around the world. International surgical societies have issued clinical recommendations to optimize surgical management. This international study aimed to assess the degree of emergency surgical teams' adoption of recommendations during the pandemic. Methods Emergency surgical team members from over 30 countries were invited to answer an anonymous, prospective, online survey to assess team organization, PPE-related aspects, OR preparations, anesthesiologic considerations, and surgical management for emergency surgery during the pandemic. Results One-hundred-and-thirty-four questionnaires were returned (N = 134) from 26 countries, of which 88% were surgeons, 7% surgical trainees, 4% anesthetists. 81% of the respondents got involved with COVID-19 crisis management. Social media were used by 91% of the respondents to access the recommendations, and 66% used videoconference tools for team communication. 51% had not received PPE training before the pandemic, 73% reported equipment shortage, and 55% informed about re-use of N95/FPP2/3 respirators. Dedicated COVID operating areas were cited by 77% of the respondents, 44% had performed emergency surgical procedures on COVID-19 patients, and over half (52%), favored performing laparoscopic over open surgical procedures. Conclusion Surgical team members have responded with leadership to the COVID-19 pandemic, with crisis management principles. Social media and videoconference have been used by the vast majority to access guidelines or to communicate during social distancing. The level of adoption of current recommendations is high for organizational aspects and surgical management, but not so for PPE training and availability, and anesthesiologic considerations.

Timing of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 has attracted substantial attention. Initial guidelines recommended delaying or avoiding tracheostomy due to the potential for particle aerosolization and theoretical risk to providers. However, early tracheostomy could improve patient outcomes and alleviate resource shortages. This study compares outcomes in a diverse population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy either "early" (within 14 d of intubation) or "late" (more than 14 d after intubation).DESIGN: International multi-institute retrospective cohort study. SETTING:Thirteen hospitals in Bolivia, Brazil, Spain, and the United States.

Introduction: extremity tourniquet (TQ) use has increased in the civilian setting; the beneficial results observed in the military has influenced acceptance by EMS and bystanders. This review aimed to analyze extremity TQ types used in the civilian setting, injury site, indications, and complications. Methods: a systematic review was conducted based on original articles published in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane following PRISMA guidelines from 2010 to 2019. Data extraction focused on extremity TQ use for hemorrhage control in the civilian setting, demographic data, study type and duration, mechanism of injury, indications for use, injury site, TQ type, TQ time, and complications. Results: of the 1384 articles identified, 14 were selected for review with a total of 3912 civilian victims with extremity hemorrhage and 3522 extremity TQ placements analyzed. The majority of TQs were applied to male (79%) patients, with blunt or penetrating trauma. Among the indications for TQ use were hemorrhagic shock, suspicion of vascular injuries, continued bleeding, and partial or complete traumatic amputations. Upper extremity application was the most common TQ application site (56%), nearly all applied to a single extremity (99%), and only 0,6% required both upper and lower extremity applications. 80% of the applied TQs were commercial devices, and 20% improvised. Conclusions: TQ use in the civilian setting is associated with trauma-related injuries. Most are single-site TQs applied for the most part to male adults with upper extremity injury. Commercial TQs are more commonly employed, time in an urban setting is under 1 hour, with few complications described.