Dataset Information

[Impact of COVID-19 on oncological surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tract].

ABSTRACT:

Background

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic imposed limitations for elective surgery, impacting the associated hospital standards worldwide. As certain treatment windows must be adhered to in oncological surgery, the limited intensive care unit (ICU) capacity had to be critically distributed in order to do justice to both acutely ill and oncology patients. This manuscript summarizes the impact of COVID-19 on the management of oncological surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tract and particularly esophageal surgery in German medical centers.

Material and methods

A survey of German centers for esophageal surgery was performed on the impact of COVID-19 on operative management for esophageal surgery during the first lockdown. After inspection, assessment, critical analysis and interpretation, the results were compared to the international literature.

Results and discussion

Initial recommendations of international societies warned for caution and restraint regarding interventions of the upper gastrointestinal tract that were not absolutely necessary. Oncological surgery should be performed under strict restrictions, especially only after negative testing for COVID-19 and only with sufficiently available personal protective equipment for the personnel. Furthermore, minimally invasive procedures were preferably not recommended. In diseases with alternative treatment options, such as definitive chemoradiotherapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, these should be given priority when possible. In the further development of the pandemic, it was shown that due to a high standardization of preoperative management, postoperative results comparable to pre-pandemic times could be achieved particularly with respect to the diagnostics of infections.

SUBMITTER: Babic B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8391856 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimThe rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for the medical and surgical healthcare systems. With the ongoing need for urgent and emergency colorectal surgery, including surgery for colorectal cancer, several questions pertaining to operating room (OR) utilization and techniques needed to be rapidly addressed.MethodThis manuscript discusses knowledge related to the critical considerations of patient and caregiver safety relating to personal protective equipment (PPE) and the operating room environment.ResultsDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, additional personal protective equipment (PPE) may be required contingent upon local availability of COVID-19 testing and the incidence of known COVID-19 infection in the respective community. In addition to standard COVID-19 PPE precautions, a negative-pressure environment, including an OR, has been recommended, especially for the performance of aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). Hospital spaces ranging from patient wards to ORs to endoscopy rooms have been successfully converted from standard positive-pressure to negative-pressure spaces. Another important consideration is the method of surgical access; specifically, minimally invasive surgery with pneumoperitoneum is an AGP and thus must be carefully considered. Current debate centres around whether it should be avoided in patients known to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 or whether it can be performed under precautions with safety measures in place to minimize exposure to aerosolized virus particles. Several important lessons learned from pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy procedures are demonstrated to help improve our understanding and management.ConclusionThis paper evaluates the issues surrounding these challenges including the OR environment and AGPs which are germane to surgical practices around the world. Although there is no single universally agreed upon set of answers, we have presented what we think is a balanced cogent description of logical safe approaches to colorectal surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:Radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) with bladder cuff excision is a standard of care in patients with high-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). Although several recommendations and guidelines on the delayed treatment of urologic cancers exist, the evidence on UTUC is scarce and ambiguous. The present systematic review aimed to summarize the available evidence on the survival outcomes after deferred RNU in patients with UTUC. A systematic literature search of the three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) was conducted until 30 April 2022. Studies were found eligible if they reported the oncological outcomes of patients treated with deferred RNU compared to the control group, including those patients treated with RNU without delay. Primary endpoints were cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS). In total, we identified seven eligible studies enrolling 5639 patients. Significant heterogeneity in the definition of "deferred RNU" was found across the included studies. Three out of five studies reporting CSS showed that deferring RNU was associated with worse CSS. Furthermore, three out of four studies reporting OS found a negative impact of delay in RNU on OS. One out of three studies reporting RFS found a negative influence of delayed RNU on RFS. While most studies reported a 3 month interval as a significant threshold for RNU delay, some subgroup analyses showed that a safe delay for RNU was less than 1 month in patients with ureteral tumors (UT) or less than 2 months in patients with hydronephrosis. In conclusion, long surgical waiting time for RNU (especially more than 3 months after UTUC diagnosis) could be considered as an important risk factor having a negative impact on oncological outcomes in patients with UTUC; however, the results of the particular studies are still inconsistent. The safe delay for RNU might be shorter in specific subsets of high-risk patients, such as those with UT and/or hydronephrosis at the time of diagnosis. High-quality additional studies are required to establish evidence for valid recommendations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:COVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA. METHODS:A 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit. RESULTS:Investigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres. CONCLUSION:Many pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies.