As elective operations are being cancelled, and surgeons are called upon to perform only emergency or carcinological surgery, the precautions to take when operating on patients who are potentially or proven COVID-19 positive are of utmost importance. The novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak hit China in the beginning of December 2019, and ignited the headlines a few days later. Unexpected, unprecedented, and radical modifications have profoundly shaken the world since then. The economic shutdown in China cleared the map of China viewed from the sky, the halt in travel, counseled first within the country, then internationally, was too late to stop the diffusion outside of China, and meanwhile has destroyed enterprises such as Flybe, while changing the economy of airlines and airports the world over. Hospitals and medical structures, in China, then Korea, and now Italy and France, abound with people either infected, or afraid of being so. The stock of respiratory machines has never been used so prominently, while facial masks, visors of all sorts and handkerchiefs, wipes and tissues have never been expended more often, and are even depleted in certain regions. First in China, then in Europe, and in particular, in Italy, the sudden and rapidly exponential afflux of patients in need of management, simple or intensive care, or simply advice to stay where they were, became the omnipresent and urgent preoccupation of health care workers, essentially those based in hospitals. In China, makeshift neo-hospitals were built in unparalleled record-braking time spans, and in Europe, external triage tents, internal reshuffling of beds and usage radically modified the architecture of existing health facilities. Surgery has also evolved and changed radically, but over a 30-year span. How has the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak affected surgery in China and Italy and will affect the future of surgery tomorrow is the question of today.

BackgroundRecently major developments in video imaging have been achieved: among these, the use of high definition and 3D imaging systems, and more recently indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging are emerging as major contributions to intraoperative decision making during surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to present our experience with different laparoscopic procedures using ICG fluorescence imaging. Patients and methods108 ICG-enhanced fluorescence-guided laparoscopic procedures were performed: 52 laparoscopic cholecystectomies, 38 colorectal resections, 8 living-donor nephrectomies, 1 laparoscopic kidney autotransplantation, 3 inguino-iliac/obturator lymph node dissections for melanoma, and 6 miscellanea procedures. Visualization of structures was provided by a high definition stereoscopic camera connected to a 30° 10 mm scope equipped with a specific lens and light source emitting both visible and near infra-red (NIR) light (KARL STORZ GmbH & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany). After injection of ICG, the system projected high-resolution NIR real-time images of blood flow in vessels and organs as well as highlighted biliary excretion .ResultsNo intraoperataive or injection-related adverse effects were reported, and the biliary/vascular anatomy was always clearly identified. The imaging system provided invaluable information to conduct a safe cholecystectomy and ensure adequate vascular supply for colectomy, nephrectomy, or find lymph nodes. There were no bile duct injuries or anastomotic leaks.ConclusionsIn our experience, the ICG fluorescence imaging system seems to be simple, safe, and useful. The technique may well become a standard in the near future in view of its different diagnostic and oncological capabilities. Larger studies and more specific evaluations are needed to confirm its role and to address its disadvantages.

Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the EAES was to generate a European guideline based on best available evidence and expert opinions of a panel of EAES members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of surgical research fellows, an expert panel with extensive clinical experience in the management of appendicitis discussed statements and recommendations. Statements and recommendations with more than 70 % agreement by the experts were selected for a web survey and the consensus meeting of the EAES in Bucharest in June 2015. EAES members and attendees at the EAES meeting in Bucharest could vote on these statements and recommendations. In the case of more than 70 % agreement, the statement or recommendation was defined as supported by the scientific community. Results from both the web survey and the consensus meeting in Bucharest are presented as percentages. In total, 46 statements and recommendations were selected for the web survey and consensus meeting. More than 232 members and attendees voted on them. In 41 of 46 statements and recommendations, more than 70 % agreement was reached. All 46 statements and recommendations are presented in this paper. They comprise topics regarding the diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, procedural aspects and post-operative care. The consensus meeting produced 46 statements and recommendations on the diagnostic work-up and management of appendicitis. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements. These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing care to patients with appendicitis. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-016-5245-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.