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

Evidence before this study: Acute appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency in children. Its diagnosis remains challenging and children presenting with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain may be admitted for clinical observation or undergo normal appendicectomy (removal of a histologically normal appendix). A search for external validation studies of risk prediction models for acute appendicitis in children was performed on MEDLINE and Web of Science on 12 January 2017 using the search terms ["appendicitis" OR "appendectomy" OR "appendicectomy"] AND ["score" OR "model" OR "nomogram" OR "scoring"]. Studies validating prediction models aimed at differentiating acute appendicitis from all other causes of RIF pain were included. No date restrictions were applied. Validation studies were most commonly performed for the Alvarado, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score (AIRS), and Paediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) models. Most validation studies were based on retrospective, single centre, or small cohorts, and findings regarding model performance were inconsistent. There was no high quality evidence to guide selection of the optimum model and threshold cutoff for identification of low-risk children in the UK and Ireland. Added value of this study: Most children admitted to hospital with RIF pain do not undergo surgery. When children do undergo appendicectomy, removal of a normal appendix (normal appendicectomy) is common, occurring in around 1 in 6 children. The Shera score is able to identify a large low-risk group of children who present with acute RIF pain but do not have acute appendicitis (specificity 44%). This low-risk group has an overall 1 in 30 risk of acute appendicitis and a 1 in 270 risk of perforated appendicitis. The Shera score is unable to achieve a sufficiently high positive predictive value to select a high-risk group who should proceed directly to surgery. Current diagnostic performance of ultrasound is also too poor to select children for surgery. Implications of all the available evidence: Routine pre-operative risk scoring could inform shared decision making by doctors, children, and parents by supporting safe selection of lowrisk patients for ambulatory management, reducing unnecessary admissions and normal appendicectomy. Hospitals should ensure seven-day-a-week availability of ultrasound for medium and high-risk patients. Ultrasound should be performed by operators trained to assess for acute appendicitis in children. For children in whom diagnostic uncertainty remains following ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or low-dose computed tomography (CT) are second-line investigations.

Background The incidence of incisional hernia after major abdominal surgery via a midline laparotomy is 20–41 per cent with short-term follow-up, and over 50 per cent in those surviving an abdominal catastrophe. Abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) requires complex operations, often involving mesh resection, management of scarred skin, fistula takedown, component separation or flap reconstruction. Patients tend to have more complex conditions, with multiple co-morbidities predisposing them to a vicious cycle of complications and, subsequently, hernia recurrence. Currently there appears to be variance in perioperative practice and minimal guidance globally. The aim of this Delphi consensus was to provide a clear benchmark of care for the preoperative assessment and perioperative optimization of patients undergoing AWR. Methods The Delphi method was used to achieve consensus from invited experts in the field of AWR. Thirty-two hernia surgeons from recognized hernia societies globally took part. The process included two rounds of anonymous web-based voting with response analysis and formal feedback, concluding with a live round of voting followed by discussion at an international conference. Consensus for a strong recommendation was achieved with 80 per cent agreement, and a weak recommendation with 75 per cent agreement. Results Consensus was obtained on 52 statements including surgical assessment, preoperative assessment, perioperative optimization, multidisciplinary team and decision-making, and quality-of-life assessment. Forty-six achieved over 80 per cent agreement; 14 statements achieved over 95 per cent agreement. Conclusion Clear consensus recommendations from a global group of experts in the AWR field are presented in this study. These should be used as a baseline for surgeons and centres managing abdominal wall hernias and performing complex AWR.

Introduction Abdominal wall herniation (AWH) is an increasing problem for patients, surgeons, and healthcare providers. Surgical-site specific outcomes, such as infection, recurrence, and mesh explantation, are improving; however, successful repair still exposes the patient to what is often a complex major operation aimed at improving quality of life. Quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes, such as aesthetics, pain, and physical and emotional functioning, are less often and less well reported. We reviewed QOL tools currently available to evaluate their suitability. Methods A systematic review of the literature in compliance with PRISMA guidelines was performed between 1st January 1990 and 1st May 2019. English language studies using validated quality-of-life assessment tool, whereby outcomes using this tool could be assessed were included. Results Heterogeneity in the QOL tool used for reporting outcome was evident throughout the articles reviewed. AWH disease-specific tools, hernia-specific tools, and generic tools were used throughout the literature with no obviously preferred or dominant method identified. Conclusion Despite increasing acknowledgement of the need to evaluate QOL in patients with AWH, no tool has become dominant in this field. Assessment, therefore, of the impact of certain interventions or techniques on quality of life remains difficult and will continue to do so until an adequate standardised outcome measurement tool is available.