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.

Background and ObjectiveThe course and branches of the median nerve (MN) in the wrist vary widely among the population. Due to significant differences in the reported prevalence of such variations, extensive knowledge on the anatomy of the MN is essential to avoid iatrogenic nerve injury. Our aim was to determine the prevalence rates of anatomical variations of the MN in the carpal tunnel and the most common course patterns and variations in its thenar motor branch (TMB).Study DesignA systematic search of all major databases was performed to identify articles that studied the prevalence of MN variations in the carpal tunnel and the TMB. No date or language restrictions were set. Extracted data was classified according to Lanz's classification system: variations in the course of the single TMB—extraligamentous, subligamentous, and transligamentous (type 1); accessory branches of the MN at the distal carpal tunnel (type 2); high division of the MN (type 3); and the MN and its accessory branches proximal to the carpal tunnel (type 4). Pooled prevalence rates were calculated using MetaXL 2.0.ResultsThirty-one studies (n = 3918 hands) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence rates of the extraligamentous, subligamentous, and transligamentous courses were 75.2% (95%CI:55.4%-84.7%), 13.5% (95%CI:3.6%-25.7%), and 11.3% (95%CI:2.4%-23.0%), respectively. The prevalence of Lanz group 2, 3, and 4 were 4.6% (95%CI:1.6%-9.1%), 2.6% (95%CI:0.1%-2.8%), and 2.3% (95%CI:0.3%-5.6%), respectively. Ulnar side of branching of the TMB was found in 2.1% (95%CI:0.9%-3.6%) of hands. The prevalence of hypertrophic thenar muscles over the transverse carpal ligament was 18.2% (95%CI:6.8%-33.0%). A transligamentous course of the TMB was more commonly found in hands with hypertrophic thenar muscles (23.4%, 95%CI:5.0%-43.4%) compared to those without hypertrophic musculature (1.7%, 95%CI:0%-100%). In four studies (n = 423 hands), identical bilateral course of the TMB was found in 72.3% (95%CI:58.4%-84.4%) of patients.ConclusionsAnatomical variations in the course of the TMB and the MN in the carpal tunnel are common in the population. Thus, we recommend an ulnar side approach to carpal tunnel release, with a careful layer by layer dissection, to avoid iatrogenic damage to the TMB.

Critical appraisal of anatomical studies is essential before the evidence from them undergoes meta-epidemiological synthesis. However, no instrument for appraising anatomical studies with inherent applicability to different study designs is available. We aim to develop a generic yet comprehensive tool for assessing the quality of anatomical studies using a formal consensus method. The study steering committee formulated an initial conceptual design and generated items for a preliminary tool on the basis of a literature review and expert opinion. A Delphi procedure was then adopted to assess the validity of the preliminary tool. Feedback from the Delphi panelists was used to improve it. The Delphi procedure involved 12 experts in anatomical research. It comprised two rounds, after which unanimous consensus was reached about the items to be included. The preliminary tool consisted of 20 items, which were phrased as signaling questions and organized into five domains: 1. Aim and subject characteristics, 2. Study design, 3. Characterization of methods, 4. Descriptive anatomy, and 5. Results reporting. Each domain was set to end with a risk of bias question. Following round 1, some of the items underwent major revision, although agreement was reached regarding inclusion of all the domains and signaling questions in the preliminary tool. The tool was revised only for minor language inaccuracies after round 2. The AQUA Tool was designed to assess the quality and reliability of anatomical studies. It is currently undergoing a validation process. Clin. Anat. 30:6-13,

The rise of evidence-based anatomy has emphasized the need for original anatomical studies with high clarity, transparency, and comprehensiveness in reporting. Currently, inconsistencies in the quality and reporting of such studies have placed limits on accurate reliability and impact assessment. Our aim was to develop a checklist of reporting items that should be addressed by authors of original anatomical studies. The study steering committee formulated a preliminary conceptual design and began to generate items on the basis of a literature review and expert opinion. This led to the development of a preliminary checklist. The validity of this checklist was assessed by a Delphi procedure, and feedback from the Delphi panelists, who were experts in the area of anatomical research, was used to improve it. The Delphi procedure involved 12 experts in anatomical research. It comprised two rounds, after which unanimous consensus was reached regarding the items to be included in the checklist. The steering committee agreed to name the checklist AQUA. The preliminary AQUA Checklist consisted of 26 items divided into eight sections. Following round 1, some of the items underwent major revision and three new ones were introduced. The checklist was revised only for minor language inaccuracies after round 2. The final version of the AQUA Checklist consisted of the initial eight sections with a total of 29 items. The steering committee hopes the AQUA Checklist will improve the quality and reporting of anatomical studies. Clin.

No abstract