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.

HighlightsNew treatment options for challenging procedures in hernia surgery are necessary.Possibility of improving prosthetic compatibility and reducing future recurrences.Tissue engineering offers new strategies to improve fascial healing.Case of a surgeon – challenging abdominal incisional hernia.Treatment provided was PRP and BM-MSCs on a biological mesh.

Introduction:In the recent years approach to colorectal cancer liver metastasis showed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy to patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases can increase the number of patients who can undergo potentially curative liver resection. Also the approach to patients with initially resectable liver metastasis has changed from surgery to perioperative chemotherapy. Methods: We analyzed prospectively data collected from 44 patients with colorectal stage IV disease with liver metastasis only (resectable or non resectable) from January 2012 to January 2014, treated with first line chemotherapy. We evaluated RR, PFS and DFS at 1year and 2 years. Every 3 months patients where evaluated for surgery. After 3 months of chemotherapy patients with resectable liver metastasis underwent surgery. Results: 44 patients were included into the analysis. Patients' characteristics are described in table 1. 3CR (7%), 23 PR (59%), 6 SD (16%) and 7 PD (18%) were observed. 23 patients (58%) underwent liver surgery: 13 of these patients were initially resectable and 20 had R0 surgery. PFS at 1 year and 2 years is 60% and 40% respectively. DFS is 52% and 35% respectively at 1 and 2 years. In the subgroup treated with first line polychemotherapy plus biologic (25 patients) PFS at 1 year and 2 years is 75% and 55% respectively. In the subgroup of patients who underwent resection PFS and DFS at 1 and 2 years is 72%, 58%, 66% and 58% respectively. Conclusion: Systematic treatment in colorectal neoplasm increases the rate of patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis. This analysis is focused on selected patients with exclusively liver disease and poor prognosis (82% synchronous disease, 71% unresectable disease, 41% of patients undertreated). Despite this, our data seem to highlight that patients positively selected from chemotherapy to surgery, have comparable outcome to reported literature data. Aggressive approach in this subgroup of patients is justified from the greater benefit in terms of oncologic outcome.

Even if acute abdomen is associated with gastrointestinal (GI) perforation in more than 90% of cases, spontaneously perforated pyometra is a rare and misleading cause that gynecologists and general surgeons should suspect in elderly postmenopausal women. We report one case of diffuse peritonitis caused by spontaneous uterine perforation. A 94-year-old postmenopausal female was admitted to emergency department with signs of diffuse peritonitis and seven days history of abdominal pain. Abdominal contrast-enhanced CT-scan showed a large amount of ascites and a small amount of intraperitoneal free-air. One hour after the admission septic shock developed and emergency laparotomy was performed for suspected GI perforation. During laparotomy about 1500 mL of purulent, malodorous but not-fecaloid fluid was found in peritoneal cavity, without evidence of GI perforation. A 10 mm perforation on the anterior part of the uterine fundus was found. A total abdominal hysterectomy with a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was performed. Patients died on postoperative day four despite intensive care for multi-organ failure due to septic shock. The hysto-pathology examination showed absence of cancer. Pyometra perforation is a rare cause of acute abdomen with a not negligible mortality and it should be considered in the differential diagnosis of acute abdomen, especially in elderly patients. The aim of the study is to report our personal experience and a review of the literature of spontaneous perforation of pyometra in patients with no evidence of malignancy.