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.

Background: The best treatment for the combined defects of midline and lateral incisional hernia is not known. The aim of our multicenter study was to evaluate the operative and patient-reported outcomes using a modified posterior component separation in patients who present with the combination of midline and lateral incisional hernia. Methods: We identified patients from a prospective, multicenter database who underwent operative repairs of a midline and lateral incisional hernia at 4 centers with minimum 2-year follow-up. Hernias were divided into a main hernia based on the larger size and associated abdominal wall hernias. Outcomes reported were short-and long-term complications, including recurrence, pain, and bulging. Quality of life was assessed with the European Registry for Abdominal Wall Hernias Quality of Life score. Results: Fifty-eight patients were identified. Almost 70% of patients presented with a midline defect as the main incisional hernia. The operative technique was a transversus abdominis release in 26 patients (45%), a modification of transversus abdominis release 27 (47%), a reverse transversus abdominis release in 3 (5%), and a primary, lateral retromuscular preperitoneal approach in 2 (3%). Surgical site occurrences occurred in 22 patients (38%), with only 8 patients (14%) requiring procedural intervention. During a mean follow-up of 30.1 ± 14.4 months, 2 (3%) cases of recurrence were diagnosed and required reoperation. There were also 4 (7%) patients with asymptomatic but visible bulging. The European Registry for Abdominal Wall Hernias Quality of Life score showed a statistically significant decrease in the 3 domains (pain, restriction, and cosmetic) in the postoperative score compared with the preoperative score. Conclusion:The different techniques of posterior component separation in the treatment of combined midline and lateral incisional hernia show acceptable results, despite the associated high complexity. Patient-reported outcomes after measurement of the European Registry for Abdominal Wall Hernias Quality of Life score demonstrated a clinically important improvement in quality of life and pain.

Purpose The closure of midline in abdominal wall incisional hernias is an essential principle. In some exceptional circumstances, despite adequate component separation techniques, this midline closure cannot be achieved. This study aims to review the results of using both anterior and component separation in these exceptional cases. Methods We reviewed our experience using the combination of both anterior and posterior component separation in the attempt to close the midline. Our first step was to perform a TAR and a complete extensive dissection of the retromuscular preperitoneal plane developed laterally as far as the posterior axillary line. When the closure of midline was not possible, an external oblique release was made. A retromuscular preperitoneal reinforcement was made with the combination of an absorbable mesh and a 50 × 50 polypropylene mesh. Results Twelve patients underwent anterior and posterior component separation. The mean hernia width was 23.5 ± 5. The majority were classified as severe complex incisional hernia and had previous attempts of repair. After a mean follow-up of 27 months (range 8–45), no case of recurrence was registered. Only one patient (8.33%) presented with an asymptomatic bulging in the follow-up. European Hernia Society’s quality of life scores showed a significant improvement at 2 years postoperatively in the three domains: pain (p = 0.01), restrictions (p = 0.04) and cosmetic (p = 0.01). Conclusions The combination of posterior and anterior component separation can effectively treat massive and challenging cases of abdominal wall reconstruction in which the primary midline closure is impossible to achieve despite appropriate optimization of surgery.

Incisions performed for hepato-pancreatic-biliary (HPB) surgery are diverse, and can be a challenge both to perform correctly as well as to be properly closed. The anatomy of the region overlaps muscular layers and has a rich vascular and nervous supply. These structures are fundamental for the correct functionality of the abdominal wall. When performing certain types of incisions, damage to the muscular or neurovascular component of the abdominal wall, as well as an inadequate closure technique may influence in the development of long-term complications as incisional hernias (IH) or bulging. Considering that both may impair quality of life and that are complex to repair, prevention becomes essential during these procedures. With the currently available evidence, there is no clear recommendation on which is the better incision or what is the best method of closure. Despite the lack of sufficient data, the following review aims to correlate the anatomical knowledge learned from posterior component separation with the incisions performed in hepato-pancreatic-biliary (HPB) surgery and their consequences on incisional hernia formation. Overall, there is data that suggests some key points to perform these incisions: avoid vertical components and very lateral extensions, subcostal should be incised at least 2 cm from costal margin, multilayered suturing using small bites technique and consider the use of a prophylactic mesh in high-risk patients. Nevertheless, the lack of evidence prevents from the possibility of making any strong recommendations.