Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common infections associated with health care, but its importance as a global health priority is not fully understood. We quantified the burden of SSI after gastrointestinal surgery in countries in all parts of the world. This international, prospective, multicentre cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection within 2-week time periods at any health-care facility in any country. Countries with participating centres were stratified into high-income, middle-income, and low-income groups according to the UN's Human Development Index (HDI). Data variables from the GlobalSurg 1 study and other studies that have been found to affect the likelihood of SSI were entered into risk adjustment models. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day SSI incidence (defined by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for superficial and deep incisional SSI). Relationships with explanatory variables were examined using Bayesian multilevel logistic regression models. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02662231. Between Jan 4, 2016, and July 31, 2016, 13 265 records were submitted for analysis. 12 539 patients from 343 hospitals in 66 countries were included. 7339 (58·5%) patient were from high-HDI countries (193 hospitals in 30 countries), 3918 (31·2%) patients were from middle-HDI countries (82 hospitals in 18 countries), and 1282 (10·2%) patients were from low-HDI countries (68 hospitals in 18 countries). In total, 1538 (12·3%) patients had SSI within 30 days of surgery. The incidence of SSI varied between countries with high (691 [9·4%] of 7339 patients), middle (549 [14·0%] of 3918 patients), and low (298 [23·2%] of 1282) HDI (p<0·001). The highest SSI incidence in each HDI group was after dirty surgery (102 [17·8%] of 574 patients in high-HDI countries; 74 [31·4%] of 236 patients in middle-HDI countries; 72 [39·8%] of 181 patients in low-HDI countries). Following risk factor adjustment, patients in low-HDI countries were at greatest risk of SSI (adjusted odds ratio 1·60, 95% credible interval 1·05-2·37; p=0·030). 132 (21·6%) of 610 patients with an SSI and a microbiology culture result had an infection that was resistant to the prophylactic antibiotic used. Resistant infections were detected in 49 (16·6%) of 295 patients in high-HDI countries, in 37 (19·8%) of 187 patients in middle-HDI countries, and in 46 (35·9%) of 128 patients in low-HDI countries (p<0·001). Countries with a low HDI carry a disproportionately greater burden of SSI than countries with a middle or high HDI and might have higher rates of antibiotic resistance. In view of WHO recommendations on SSI prevention that highlight the absence of high-quality interventional research, urgent, pragmatic, randomised trials based in LMICs are needed to assess measures aiming to reduce this preventable complication. DFID-MRC-Wellcome Trust Joint Global Health Trial Development Grant, National Institute of Health Research Global Health Research Unit Grant.

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.

Aim: The current COVID‐19 pandemic is challenging healthcare systems at a global level. We provide a practical strategy to reorganize pathways of emergency and elective colorectal surgery during the COVID‐19 pandemic.Method: The authors, all from areas affected by the COVID‐19 emergency, brainstormed remotely to define the key‐points to be discussed. Tasks were assigned, concerning specific aspects of colorectal surgery during the pandemic, including the administrative management of the crisis in Italy. The recommendations (based on experience and on the limited evidence available) were collated and summarized.Results: Little is known about the transmission of COVID‐19, but it has shown a rapid spread. It is prudent to stop non‐cancer procedures and prioritize urgent cancer treatment. Endoscopy and proctological procedures should be performed highly selectively. When dealing with colorectal emergencies, a conservative approach is advised. Specific procedures should be followed when operating on COVID‐19‐patients, using dedicated personal protective equipment and adhering to specific rules. Some policies are described, including minimally‐invasive surgery. These policies outline the strict regulation of entry/ exit into theatres and operating building as well as advice on performing procedures safely to reduce risk of spreading the virus. It is likely that a reorganization of health system is required, both at central and local levels. A description of the strategy adopted in Italy is provided.Conclusion: Evidence on the management of patients needing surgery for colorectal conditions during the COVID‐19 pandemic is currently lacking. Lessons learnt from healthcare professionals that have managed high volumes of surgical patients during the pandemic could be useful to mitigate some risks and reduce exposure to other patients, public and healthcare staff.

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate morbidity, mortality, postoperative function and recurrences in patients treated by Altemeier’s rectosigmoidectomy for complete rectal prolapse in a referral center for pelvic floor functional disorders. Peri-operative data on 43 consecutive female patients were reviewed. At follow-up any change in pelvic floor function and recurrences were determined. Thirty four patients were assessed at a median interval of 49 (2–135) months, six being deceased for reason not related to the prolapse and three lost to follow-up. Post-operative complications at 30 days occurred in 18 patients (38%). Major complication occurred in only one patient that was pneumonia with lung failure. Major complications were not related to the ASA score, BMI or age [average age 76.4]. There was no post-operative mortality at 30 days. At long-term follow-up functional results demonstrate a statistically significant decrease in the Obstructive Defecation Syndrome (ODS) score, but no statistically significant changes in the Vaizey score, the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form (ICIQ-SF) score and the urinary retention score. ODS score decreased with respect to levatorplasty and the change was statistically significant instead of Vaizey score in which were not. At the same follow-up there were 12 (35%) cases of recurrence with an estimated risk at 48 months of 40%. There were no statistically significant differences between patients with and without recurrence regarding age (p = 0.188), BMI (p = 0.864), ASA score (p = 0.433), previously repaired prolapse (p = 0.398), previous hysterectomy (p = 0.705), length of resected bowel (p = 0.126), and levatorplasty (p = 0.304). Patient satisfaction showed a mean of 8.8 and 6.4 respectively in patients without and with recurrences (p = 0.012). Altemeier’s procedure had in our series low complications rate and no mortality. It offered improved evacuation in constipated patients while didn’t improve fecal and urinary continence. Recurrence of prolapse was 40% at four years.