Summary: SARS‐CoV‐2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri‐operative or prior SARS‐CoV‐2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub‐study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis was defined as peri‐operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1–6 weeks before surgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre‐operative anti‐coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS‐CoV‐2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS‐CoV‐2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS‐CoV‐2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri‐operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1–2.0)) and recent SARS‐CoV‐2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2–3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS‐CoV‐2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9–3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30‐day mortality (5.4 (95%CI 4.3–6.7)). In patients with SARS‐CoV‐2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri‐operative or recent SARS‐CoV‐2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.

Background: Surgical strategies are being adapted to face the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations on the management of acute appendicitis have been based on expert opinion, but very little evidence is available. This study addressed that dearth with a snapshot of worldwide approaches to appendicitis. Methods: The Association of Italian Surgeons in Europe designed an online survey to assess the current attitude of surgeons globally regarding the management of patients with acute appendicitis during the pandemic. Questions were divided into baseline information, hospital organization and screening, personal protective equipment, management and surgical approach, and patient presentation before versus during the pandemic. Results: Of 744 answers, 709 (from 66 countries) were complete and were included in the analysis. Most hospitals were treating both patients with and those without COVID. There was variation in screening indications and modality used, with chest X-ray plus molecular testing (PCR) being the commonest (19·8 per cent). Conservative management of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis was used by 6·6 and 2·4 per cent respectively before, but 23·7 and 5·3 per cent, during the pandemic (both P < 0·001). One-third changed their approach from laparoscopic to open surgery owing to the popular (but evidence-lacking) advice from expert groups during the initial phase of the pandemic. No agreement on how to filter surgical smoke plume during laparoscopy was identified. There was an overall reduction in the number of patients admitted with appendicitis and one-third felt that patients who did present had more severe appendicitis than they usually observe. Conclusion: Conservative management of mild appendicitis has been possible during the pandemic. The fact that some surgeons switched to open appendicectomy may reflect the poor guidelines that emanated in the early phase of SARS-CoV-2.

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.

The role of inflammatory responses in predicting outcomes in oncological thoracic surgery is still unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate a series of blood count inflammation indexes as predicting factors for postoperative complications. We retrospectively studied 249 patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery in our institution between 2008 and 2020. A total of 184 patients underwent open surgery, and 65 underwent VATS. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte (MLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte (PLR) ratios, Systemic Inflammation Response Index (SIRI) were calculated preoperatively and on the first and fourth postoperative days, as well as a new derivative index, the Aggregate Inflammation Systemic Index (AISI). Univariate correlations evidenced a statistically significant association between the NLR at the fourth postoperative day and the occurrence of surgical complications in the global cohort (rho = 0.15, p = 0.03). A similar significant association with MLR on the fourth postoperative day is found in the open group (rho = −0.15, p = 0.048). NLR and LMR on the fourth postoperative day are associated with postoperative complications in the whole and open groups, respectively. Simple, easy-to-perform and inexpensive, blood cell count indexes may be useful in predicting complications in oncological thoracic surgery. A greater number of broader, prospective, randomized studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Background: The literature is conflicting regarding oncological outcome and morbidity associated to portal–mesenteric resection during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma (PHAC). Methods: A meta-analysis of studies comparing PD plus venous resection (PD+VR) and standard PD exclusively in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head was conducted. Results: Twenty-three cohort studies were identified, which included 6037 patients, of which 28.6% underwent PD+VR and 71.4% underwent standard PD. Patients who received PD+VR had lower 1-year overall survival (OS) (odds radio OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67–0.92, p = 0.003), 3-year OS (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59–0.87, p = 0.0006), and 5-year OS (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39–0.83, p = 0.003). Patients in the PD+VR group were more likely to have a larger tumor size (MD 3.87, 95% CI 1.75 to 5.99, p = 0.0003), positive lymph nodes (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.06–1.45, p = 0.007), and R1 resection (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.37–2.20, p < 0.0001). Thirty-day mortality was higher in the PD+VR group (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.28–2.91, p = 0.002), while no differences between groups were observed in rates of total complications (OR 1.07, 95% CI, 0.81–1.41, p = 0.65). Conclusions: Although PD+VR has significantly increased the resection rate in patients with PHAC, it has inferior survival outcomes and higher 30-day mortality when compared with standard PD, whereas postoperative morbidity rates are similar. Further research is needed to evaluate the role of PD+VR in the context of multimodality treatment of PHAC.