Based on high quality surgery and scientific data, scientists and surgeons are committed to protecting patients as well as healthcare staff and hereby provide this Guidance to address the special issues circumstances related to the exponential spread of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during this pandemic. As a basis, the authors used the British Intercollegiate General Surgery Guidance as well as recommendations from the USA, Asia, and Italy. The aim is to take responsibility and to provide guidance for surgery during the COVID-19 crisis in a simplified way addressing the practice of surgery, healthcare staff and patient safety and care. It is the responsibility of scientists and the surgical team to specify what is needed for the protection of patients and the affiliated healthcare team. During crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the responsibility and duty to provide the necessary resources such as filters, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) consisting of gloves, fluid resistant (Type IIR) surgical face masks (FRSM), filtering face pieces, class 3 (FFP3 masks), face shields and gowns (plastic ponchos), is typically left up to the hospital administration and government. Various scientists and clinicians from disparate specialties provided a Pandemic Surgery Guidance for surgical procedures by distinct surgical disciplines such as numerous cancer surgery disciplines, cardiothoracic surgery, ENT, eye, dermatology, emergency, endocrine surgery, general surgery, gynecology, neurosurgery, orthopedics, pediatric surgery, reconstructive and plastic surgery, surgical critical care, transplantation surgery, trauma surgery and urology, performing different surgeries, as well as laparoscopy, thoracoscopy and endoscopy. Any suggestions and corrections from colleagues will be very welcome as we are all involved and locked in a rapidly evolving process on increasing COVID-19 knowledge.

The repair of difficult abdominal wall defects (AWDs) continues to be a crucial and demanding issue for surgeons. This study aimed to present the risk factors and the long-term results of usage of an expanded-polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) synthetic mesh for the AWR of difficult abdominal wall defects. This study included 156 adult patients who underwent difficult AWR with e-PTFE mesh for incisional hernia, ventral hernia, and created AWDs of various etiopathologies. The association between the risk factors and the postoperative complications of AWR was analyzed, and overall long-term outcomes of e-PTFE repair were assessed. The median follow-up duration was 119.1 (ranging from 2 to 206) months. In 70 (44.8%) patients, there were major co-morbidities. A surgical site infection developed in 17 (10.9%) patients. Of these, only 2 (1.3%) patients had e-PTFE mesh infection. Seven (4.4%) patients experienced recurrence. Recalcitrant seroma formation occurred in 8 (36.3%) patients. E-PTFE synthetic mesh usage for difficult abdominal wall hernias can help the hernia surgeon obtain safe and durable long-term results of sound repair.

PURPOSE This paper aims to investigate the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in predicting the pathologic stage of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) after neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) and the role of MRI in selecting patients with a pathologic complete response (ypCR). METHODS Restaging MRI (yMRI) examinations of 136 patients with LARC treated with neoadjuvant CRT fol-lowed by surgery were retrospectively analyzed by two radiologists. All examinations were per -formed on a 1.5 Tesla MRI machine with a pelvic phased-array coil. T2-weighted turbo spin-echo images and diffusion-weighted imaging were obtained. Histopathologic reports of the surgical specimens were the reference standard. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of yMRI in predicting the pathologic T-stage (ypT), N-stage, and ypCR were calculated. The inter-observer agreement was evaluated using kappa statistics. RESULTS The yMRI results showed 67% accuracy, 59% sensitivity, 80% specificity, 81% PPV, and 56% NPV in identifying ypT (ypT0-2 versus ypT3-4). In predicting the nodal status, the yMRI results revealed 63% accuracy, 60% sensitivity, 65% specificity, 47% PPV, and 75% NPV. In predicting ypCR, the yMRI results showed 84% accuracy, 20% sensitivity, 92% specificity, 23% PPV, and 90% NPV. The kappa statistics revealed substantial agreement between the two radiologists. CONCLUSION Utilization of yMRI showed high specificity and PPV in predicting the tumor stage and high NPV in predicting the nodal stage; in addition, yMRI revealed moderate accuracy in the T and N classifica-tions, mainly due to underestimating the tumor stage and overestimating the nodal status. Finally, yMRI revealed high specificity and NPV but low sensitivity in predicting the complete response.