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.

IMPORTANCE Retinal displacement following rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair may have consequences for visual function. It is important to know whether surgical technique is associated with risk of displacement.OBJECTIVE To compare retinal displacement following rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair with pneumatic retinopexy (PR) vs pars plana vitrectomy (PPV). INTERVENTIONS OR EXPOSURESFundus autofluorescence images were assessed by graders masked to surgical technique. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA multicenter retrospective consecutive case series in Canada and the UK. A total of 238 patients (238 eyes) with rhegmatogenous retinal detachments treated with PR or PPV who underwent fundus autofluorescence imaging from November 11, 2017, to March 22, 2019, were included. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESProportion of patients with retinal displacement detected by retinal vessel printings on fundus autofluorescence imaging in PR vs PPV. RESULTSOf the 238 patients included in the study, 144 were men (60.5%) and 94 were women (39.5%); mean (SD) age was 62.0 (11.0) years. Of the 238 eyes included in this study, 114 underwent PR (47.9%) and 124 underwent PPV (52.1%) as the final procedure to achieve reattachment. Median time from surgical procedure to fundus autofluorescence imaging was 3 months (interquartile range, 1-5 months). Baseline characteristics in both groups were similar. The proportion of eyes with retinal vessel printing on fundus autofluorescence was 7.0% for PR (8 of 114) and 44.4% for PPV (55 of 124) (37.4% difference; 95% CI, 27.4%-47.3%; P < .001). Analysis based on the initial procedure found that 42.4% (42 of 99) of the eyes in the PPV group vs 15.1% (21 of 139) of the eyes in the PR group (including 13 PR failures with subsequent PPV) had displacement (27.3% difference; 95% CI, 15.9%-38.7%; P < .001). Among eyes with displacement in the macula, the mean (SD) displacement was 0.137 (0.086) mm (n = 6) for PR vs 0.297 (0.283) mm (n = 52) for PPV (0.160-mm difference; 95% CI, 0.057-0.263 mm; P = .006). Mean postoperative logMAR visual acuity was 0.31 (0.32) (n = 134) (Snellen equivalent 20/40) in eyes that initially underwent PR and 0.56 (0.42) (n = 84) (Snellen equivalent 20/72) in eyes that had PPV (−0.25 difference; 95% CI, −0.14 to −0.35; P < .001). Among eyes with displacement, mean postoperative logMAR visual acuity was 0.42 (0.42) (n = 20) (Snellen equivalent 20/52) in those that initially underwent PR and 0.66 (0.47) (n = 33) (Snellen equivalent 20/91) in those that initially underwent PPV (−0.24 difference; 95% CI, −0.48 to 0.01; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThese findings suggest that retinal displacement occurs more frequently and is more severe with PPV vs PR when considering the initial and final procedure used to achieve retinal reattachment. Recognizing the importance of anatomic integrity by assessing retinal displacement following reattachment may lead to refinements in vitreoretinal surgery techniques.

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.

No abstract

Purpose. To evaluate the current and suitable use of current proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) classifications in clinical publications related to treatment. Methods. A PubMed search was undertaken using the term “proliferative vitreoretinopathy therapy”. Outcome parameters were the reported PVR classification and PVR grades. The way the classifications were used in comparison to the original description was analyzed. Classification errors were also included. It was also noted whether classifications were used for comparison before and after pharmacological or surgical treatment. Results. 138 papers were included. 35 of them (25.4%) presented no classification reference or did not use any one. 103 publications (74.6%) used a standardized classification. The updated Retina Society Classification, the first Retina Society Classification, and the Silicone Study Classification were cited in 56.3%, 33.9%, and 3.8% papers, respectively. Furthermore, 3 authors (2.9%) used modified-customized classifications and 4 (3.8%) classification errors were identified. When the updated Retina Society Classification was used, only 10.4% of authors used a full C grade description. Finally, only 2 authors reported PVR grade before and after treatment. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that current classifications are of limited value in clinical practice due to the inconsistent and limited use and that it may be of benefit to produce a revised classification.