BackgroundSurgeons need guidance regarding appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic based on scientific evidence rather than availability. The aim of this paper is to inform surgeons of appropriate PPE requirements, and to discuss usage, availability, rationing and future solutions.

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...

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources. gathering end maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB qontrol number. Arlington, VA 22217-5660 SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT "NUMBER(S)12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14.AASTRACTit is a major challenge to determine whether bias in operational global wave predictions is predominately due to the wave model itself (intemal error) or due to eaors in wtinOd forcing (an external error). Another challenge is to characterize bias attributable to errors in wave model physics (e.g., input, dissipation, and nonlinear transfer). In this study, hindcasts and an evaluation methodology are constructed to address these challenges. The bias of the wave predictions is evaluated with constderation of the bias of four different wind forcing fields [two of which are supplemented with the NASA Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT) measurements]. It is found that the accuracy of the Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center's operational global wind forcing has improved to the point where it isMuIlikely to be the primary source of error in the center's global wave model (WAVEWATCH-I]I). The hindcast comparisons are specifically designed to minimize systematic errors from numerics and resolution. From these hindcasts, insight into the physics-related bias in the global wave model is possible: comparison to in situ wave data suggests an overall positive bias at northeast Pacific locations and an overall negative bias at northwest Atlantic locations. Comparison of frequency bands indicates a tendency by the model physics to overpredict energy at higher frequencies and underpredict energy at lower frequencies. ABSTRACTIt is a major challenge to determine whether bias in operational global wave predictions is predominately due to the wave model itself (internal error) or due to errors in wind forcing (an external error). Another challenge is to characterize bias attributable to errors in wave model physics (e.g., input, dissipation, and nonlinear transfer). In this study, hindcasts and an evaluation methodology are constructed to address these challenges. The bias of the wave predictions is evaluated with consideration of the bias of four different wind forcing fields [two of which are supplemented with the NASA Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT) measurements]. It is found that ...

No abstract

No abstract