Impelling Factors for Contracting COVID-19 Among Surgical Professionals During the Pandemic: A Multinational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND Medical workers, including surgical professionals working in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treating hospitals, were under enormous stress during the pandemic. This global study investigated factors endowing COVID-19 amongst surgical professionals and students. METHODS This global cross-sectional survey was made live on February 18, 2021 and closed for analysis on March 13, 2021. It was freely shared on social and scientific media platforms and was sent via email groups and circulated through a personal network of authors. Chi-square test for independence, and binary logistic regression analysis were carried out on determining predictors of surgical professionals contracting COVID-19. RESULTS This survey captured the response of 520 surgical professionals from 66 countries. Of the professionals, 92.5% (481/520) reported practising in hospitals managing COVID-19 patients. More than one-fourth (25.6%) of the respondents (133/520) reported suffering from COVID-19 which was more frequent in surgical professionals practising in public sector healthcare institutions (P = 0.001). Thirty-seven percent of those who reported never contracting COVID-19 (139/376) reported being still asked to practice self-isolation and wear a shield without the diagnosis (P = 0.001). Of those who did not contract COVID-19, 75.7% (283/376) were vaccinated (P < 0.001). Surgical professionals undergoing practice in the private sector (odds ratio (OR): 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14 - 0.77; P = 0.011) and receiving two doses of vaccine (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.32 - 0.95; P = 0.031) were identified to enjoy decreased odds of contracting COVID-19. Only 6.9% of those who reported not contracting COVID-19 (26/376) were calculated to have the highest "overall composite level of harm" score (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS High prevalence of respondents got COVID-19, which was more frequent in participants working in public sector hospitals. Those who reported contracting COVID-19 were calculated to have the highest level of harm score. Self-isolation or shield, getting two doses of vaccines decreases the odds of contracting COVID-19

Global 30-day morbidity and mortality of primary bariatric surgery combined with another procedure: The BLEND study

Background:No robust data are available on the safety of primary bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) alone compared to primary BMS combined with other procedures. Objectives:The objective of this study is to collect a 30-day mortality and morbidity of primary BMS combined with cholecystectomy, ventral hernia repair, or hiatal hernia repair. Setting:This is as an international, multicenter, prospective, and observational audit of patients undergoing primary BMS combined with one or more additional procedures. Methods:The audit took place from January 1 to June 30, 2022. A descriptive analysis was conducted. A propensity score matching analysis compared the BLEND study patients with those from the GENEVA cohort to obtain objective evaluation between combined procedures and primary BMS alone. Results:A total of 75 centers submitted data on 1036 patients. Sleeve gastrectomy was the most commonly primary BMS (N = 653, 63%), and hiatal hernia repair was the most commonly concomitant procedure (N = 447, 43.1%). RYGB accounted for the highest percentage (20.6%) of a 30-day morbidity, followed by SG (10.5%). More than one combined procedures had the highest morbidities among all combinations (17.1%). Out of overall 134 complications, 129 (96.2%) were Clavien-Dindo I-III, and 4 were CD V. Patients who underwent a primary bariatric surgery combined with another procedure had a pronounced increase in a 30-day complication rate compared with patients who underwent only BMS (12.7% vs. 7.1%). Conclusion:Combining BMS with another procedure increases the risk of complications, but most are minor and require no further treatment. Combined procedures with primary BMS is a viable option to consider in selected patients following multi-disciplinary discussion

Esophageal and gastric malignancies after bariatric surgery: a retrospective global study

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery can influence the presentation, diagnosis, and management of gastrointestinal cancers. Esophagogastric (EG) malignancies in patients who have had a prior bariatric procedure have not been fully characterized.OBJECTIVE: To characterize EG malignancies after bariatric procedures.SETTING: University Hospital, United Kingdom.METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multicenter observational study of patients with EG malignancies after bariatric surgery to characterize this condition.RESULTS: This study includes 170 patients from 75 centers in 25 countries who underwent bariatric procedures between 1985 and 2020. At the time of the bariatric procedure, the mean age was 50.2 ± 10 years, and the mean weight 128.8 ± 28.9 kg. Women composed 57.3% (n = 98) of the population. Most (n = 64) patients underwent a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) followed by adjustable gastric band (AGB; n = 46) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG; n = 43). Time to cancer diagnosis after bariatric surgery was 9.5 ± 7.4 years, and mean weight at diagnosis was 87.4 ± 21.9 kg. The time lag was 5.9 ± 4.1 years after SG compared to 9.4 ± 7.1 years after RYGB and 10.5 ± 5.7 years after AGB. One third of patients presented with metastatic disease. The majority of tumors were adenocarcinoma (82.9%). Approximately 1 in 5 patients underwent palliative treatment from the outset. Time from diagnosis to mortality was under 1 year for most patients who died over the intervening period.CONCLUSION: The Oesophago-Gastric Malignancies After Obesity/Bariatric Surgery study presents the largest series to date of patients developing EG malignancies after bariatric surgery and attempts to characterize this condition.</p

Global 30-Day Morbidity and Mortality of Primary Bariatric Surgery Combined with Another Procedure: The BLEND Study

Background: No robust data are available on the safety of primary bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) alone compared to primary BMS combined with other procedures. Objectives: The objective of this study is to collect a 30-day mortality and morbidity of primary BMS combined with cholecystectomy, ventral hernia repair, or hiatal hernia repair. Setting: This is as an international, multicenter, prospective, and observational audit of patients undergoing primary BMS combined with one or more additional procedures. Methods: The audit took place from January 1 to June 30, 2022. A descriptive analysis was conducted. A propensity score matching analysis compared the BLEND study patients with those from the GENEVA cohort to obtain objective evaluation between combined procedures and primary BMS alone. Results: A total of 75 centers submitted data on 1036 patients. Sleeve gastrectomy was the most commonly primary BMS (N = 653, 63%), and hiatal hernia repair was the most commonly concomitant procedure (N = 447, 43.1%). RYGB accounted for the highest percentage (20.6%) of a 30-day morbidity, followed by SG (10.5%). More than one combined procedures had the highest morbidities among all combinations (17.1%). Out of overall 134 complications, 129 (96.2%) were Clavien-Dindo I–III, and 4 were CD V. Patients who underwent a primary bariatric surgery combined with another procedure had a pronounced increase in a 30-day complication rate compared with patients who underwent only BMS (12.7% vs. 7.1%). Conclusion: Combining BMS with another procedure increases the risk of complications, but most are minor and require no further treatment. Combined procedures with primary BMS is a viable option to consider in selected patients following multi-disciplinary discussion. Graphical Abstract: (Figure presented.) © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population