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. 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 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. 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. 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 protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic tens of millions of operations have been cancelled ¹ as a result of excessive postoperative pulmonary complications (51.2 per cent) and mortality rates (23.8 per cent) in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection ². There is an urgent need to restart surgery safely in order to minimize the impact of untreated non-communicable disease.

Background: Fournier’s gangrene is a rapidly evolving necrotizing fasciitis of the perineum and the genital area, the scrotum as it most commonly affects man in the vast majority of cases. It is polymicrobial in origin, due to the synergistic action of anaerobes and aerobes and has a very high mortality. There are many predisposing factors including diabetes mellitus, alcoholism, immunosuppression, renal and hepatic disease. The prognosis of the disease depends on a lot of factors including but not limited to patient age, disease extent and comorbidities. Methods: The current retrospective study is presenting the experience of our general surgery department in the management of Fournier’s gangrene during the last 20 years. The clinical presentation and demographics of the patients were recorded. Also we recorded the laboratory data, the comorbidities, the etiology and microbiology and the therapeutic interventions performed and we calculated the various severity indexes. Patients were divided to survivors and non survivors and all the collected data were statistically analyzed in order to assess mortality factors using univariate and then multivariate analysis. Results: In our series we treated a total of 24 patients with a mean age 58.9 years including 20 males (83.4%) and 4 females (16.6%). In most patients a delay between disease onset and seeking of medical help was noted. Comorbidities were present in almost all patients (87.5%) All patients were submitted to extensive surgical debridements and received broad spectrum antibiotics until microbioligal culture results were received. Regarding all the collected data there was no statistically significant difference between survivors and non survivors except the presence of malignancy in non survivors (p=0.036) and the lower hemoglobin (p<0.001) and hematocrit (p=0.002) in non survivors. However, multivariate analysis didn’t reveal any predictor of mortality. Conclusion: In conclusion, early diagnosis, aggressive thorough surgical treatment and administration of the proper antibiotic treatment comprise the cornerstone for the outcome of this disease. In small populations like in the present study it is difficult to recognize any predictors of mortality and even the severity indexes which take into account a lot of data cannot predict mortality.

Wound healing is a complex and meticulously orchestrated process involving multiple phases and cellular interactions. This narrative review explores the intricate mechanisms behind wound healing, emphasizing the significance of cellular processes and molecular factors. The phases of wound healing are discussed, focusing on the roles of immune cells, growth factors, and extracellular matrix components. Cellular shape alterations driven by cytoskeletal modulation and the influence of the ‘Formin’ protein family are highlighted for their impact on wound healing processes. This review delves into the use of absorbable meshes in wound repair, discussing their categories and applications in different surgical scenarios. Interleukins (IL-2 and IL-6), CD31, CD34, platelet rich plasma (PRP), and adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs) are discussed in their respective roles in wound healing. The interactions between these factors and their potential synergies with absorbable meshes are explored, shedding light on how these combinations might enhance the healing process. Recent advances and challenges in the field are also presented, including insights into mesh integration, biocompatibility, infection prevention, and postoperative complications. This review underscores the importance of patient-specific factors and surgical techniques in optimizing mesh placement and healing outcomes. As wound healing remains a dynamic field, this narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the current understanding and potential avenues for future research and clinical applications.

Wound healing and tissue regeneration are a field of clinical medicine presenting high research interest, since various local and systematic factors can inhibit these processes and lead to an inferior result. New methods of healing enhancement constantly arise, which, however, require experimental validation before their establishment in everyday practice. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a well-known autologous factor that promotes tissue healing in various surgical defects. PRP derives from the centrifugation of peripheral blood and has a high concentration of growth factors that promote healing. Recently, the use of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSCs) has been thoroughly investigated as a form of wound healing enhancement. ADMSCs are autologous stem cells deriving from fat tissue, with a capability of differentiation in specific cells, depending on the micro-environment that they are exposed to. The aim of the present comprehensive review is to record the experimental studies that have been published and investigate the synergistic use of PRP and ADMSC in animal models. The technical aspects of experimentations, as well as the major results of each study, are discussed. In addition, the limited clinical studies including humans are also reported. Future perspectives are discussed, along with the limitations of current studies on the long-term follow up needed on efficacy and safety.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in surgical capacity for head and neck cancer in the UK between the first wave (March‐June 2020) and the current wave (Jan‐Feb 2021) of the COVID‐19 pandemic.Design: REDcap online‐based survey of hospital capacity.Setting: UK secondary and tertiary hospitals providing head and neck cancer surgery.Participants: One representative per hospital was asked to report the capacity for head and neck cancer surgery in that institution.Main outcome measures: The principal measures of interests were new patient referrals, capacity in outpatients, theatres and critical care; therapeutic compromises constituting delay to surgery, de‐escalated surgery and therapeutic migration to non‐surgical primary modality.Results: Data were returned from approximately 95% of UK hospitals with a head and neck cancer surgery specialist service. 50% of UK head and neck cancer patients requiring surgery have significantly compromised treatments during the second wave: 28% delayed, 10% have received radiotherapy‐based treatment instead of surgery, and 12% have received de‐escalated surgery. Surgical capacity has been more severely constrained in the second wave (58% of pre‐pandemic level) compared with the first wave (62%) despite the time to prepare.Conclusions: Some hospitals are overwhelmed by COVID‐19 and unable to offer essential cancer surgery, but all have neighbouring hospitals in their region retaining good (or even normal) capacity. It is noteworthy that very few patients have been appropriately redirected away from the hospitals most constrained by their burden of COVID‐19. The paucity of an effective central or regional strategic response to this evident mismatch between demand and surgical capacity is to the detriment of our head and neck cancer patients.