Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

No abstract

Background Postoperative pain after major knee surgery can be severe. Our aim was to compare the outcomes of epidural analgesia and peripheral nerve blockade (PNB) in patients undergoing total knee joint replacement (TKR). Moreover, we aimed to compare outcomes of adductor canal block (ACB) with those of femoral nerve block (FNB) after TKR.Methods We conducted a systematic search of electronic information sources, including MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We applied a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits in each of the above databases. Pain intensity assessed on visual analogue scale (VAS), nausea and vomiting, systolic hypotension, and urinary retention was the reported outcome parameters. Results:We identified 12 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of epidural analgesia and PNB reporting a total of 670 patients. There was no significant difference between two groups in VAS scores at 0-12 h (MD -0.48; 95 % CI -1.07-0.11, P = 0.11), 12-24 h (MD 0.04; 95 % CI -0.81-0.88, P = 0.93), and 24-48 h (MD 0.16; 95 % CI -0.08-0.40, P = 0.19). However, epidural analgesia was associated with significantly higher risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 1.65; 95 % CI, 1.20-2.28, P = 0.002), hypotension (RR 1.76; 95 % CI, 1.26-2.45, P = 0.0009), and urinary retention (RR 4.51; 95 % CI, 2.27-8.96, P<0.0001) compared to PNB. Moreover, pooled analysis of data from 6 RCTs demonstrated no significant difference in VAS score between ACB and FNB at 24 h (MD -0.00; 95 % CI, -0.56-0.56, P = 0.99) and 48 h (MD -0.06; 95 % CI, -0.14-0.03, P = 0.23).Conclusions: PNB is as effective as epidural analgesia for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing TKR. Moreover, it is associated with significantly lower postoperative complications. ACB appears to be an effective PNB with similar analgesic effect to FNB after TKR. Future RCTs may provide better evidence regarding knee range of motion, length of hospital stay, and neurological complications.

BACKGROUND The current guidelines suggest that patients should undergo endoscopic evaluation of the colonic lumen after an episode of computed tomography (CT) proven acute diverticulitis to rule out malignancy. The usefulness of routine endoscopic evaluation of CT proven diverticulitis remains unknown. AIM To establish whether routine colonoscopy should be offered to patients after an episode of diverticulitis. METHODS We performed a retrospective study, comparing two groups: a diverticulitis group and a control group. The diverticulitis group consisted of patients undergoing a colonoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis. The control group consisted of asymptomatic patients undergoing a screening sigmoidoscopy. We also performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic data resources to identify all relevant studies. The primary outcome was the number of adenomas found, while the secondary outcomes were the number of cancers and polyps identified, and the adenoma risk. RESULTS 68 and 1309 patients were included in the diverticulitis and control groups respectively. There was no difference in the risk of adenomas (5.9% vs 7.6%, P = 0.59), non-advanced adenomas (5.9% vs 6.9%, P = 0.75), advanced adenomas (0% vs 0.8%, P = 1), cancer (0% vs 0.15%, P = 1.00), and polyps (16.2% vs 14.2%, P = 0.65) between both groups. Meta-analysis of data from 4 retrospective observational studies, enrolling 4459 patients, showed no difference between the groups in terms of risk of adenomas (RD = -0.05, 95%CI: -0.11, 0.01, P = 0.10), non-advanced adenomas (RD = -0.02, 95%CI: -0.08, 0.04, P = 0.44), advanced adenomas (RD = -0.01, 95%CI: -0.04, 0.02, P = 0.36), cancer (RD = 0.01, 95%CI: -0.01, 0.03, P = 0.32), and polyps (RD = -0.05, 95%CI: -0.12, 0.02, P = 0.18). CONCLUSION Routine colonoscopy may not be appropriate in patients with acute diverticulitis. High quality prospective studies are required for more robust conclusions.

No abstract