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.

Objective This study assessed the impact of COVID-19 on abortion services in all 50 United States states and the District of Columbia. Study design ANSIRH's Abortion Facility Database is a systematic collection of data on all publicly-advertising abortion facilities in the United States, updated annually through online searches and mystery shopper phone calls. Research staff updated the database in May-August 2020, assessing the number of facilities that closed, limited or stopped providing abortions, and provided telehealth options in summer 2020 due to COVID-19.  We describe these changes using frequencies and highlighting themes and examples from coded qualitative data. Results Located primarily in the South and Midwest, 24 of 751 facilities that were open in 2019 temporarily closed due to the pandemic, with 9 still closed by August 2020. Other facilities described suspending abortions, referring abortion patients to other facilities, or limiting services to medication abortion. While most facilities required in-person visits for reasons like state abortion restrictions, 22% ( n = 150) offered phone or telehealth consultations, no-test visits, or medication abortion by mail to reduce or eliminate patient time in the clinic. Some facilities used creative strategies to reduce COVID-19 risk like allowing patients to wait for visits in their cars or offering drive-through medication pick-up. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic caused several disruptions to abortion service availability, including closures. To reduce in-person visit time, some clinics shifted to offering medication abortion (versus procedural) or telehealth. While the pandemic and abortion restrictions increased barriers to abortion provision, facilities were resilient and adapted to provide safe care for their patients. Implications Barriers to abortion access were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in areas of the country with more restrictive policies toward abortion. Telehealth care protocols offered by many abortion facilities provide an option to reduce or eliminate in-person visits.

Continuous open dorsoventral irrigation-drainage of the peritoneal cavity using copious amounts (401/24 h) of elektrolyte solution was instituted in ten patients with severe and advanced pe/-itonitis. Although nine patients died, autopsy revealed nearly complete local control of infection; the high mortality was due to secondary manifestations of invasive sepsis.