LUKMAN OLAJIDE ABDUR-RAHMAN
@@unilorin.edu.ng
University of Ilorin
Professor Lukman Olajide Abdur-Rahman is a Professor of Surgery and Honorary Consultant Paediatric Surgeon. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, University of Ilorin and University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital of Unilorin Medical Screening Centre from November 2020. Head of Department of Surgery (Unilorin and UITH), and Chairman UITH Theatre Users’ Committee from 2018 to 2021. Pioneer Coordinator of the Clinical Skills and Simulation Laboratory, College of Health Sciences (2014-2018). Coordinator of the Medical Education and Resource Unit (MERU) of the College of Health Sciences, University of Ilorin (2012-2014). Pioneer Chief Medical Director of Crescent Gold Crown Hospital Limited (2007-2015). Pioneer Director of the Centre for Injury Research and Safety Promotion (CIRASP) of the University of Ilorin Teaching hospital (2007-2011) Coordinator, Basic Surgical Skills Course, Ilorin Centre for West Africa College of Surgeons from 2015 to date.
EDUCATION
MB;BS, MPH, MD, FWACS, FMCS, FACS, FMAS (Amrita, India), IIWCC cert, Global Health Simulation fellow (McGill University, Montreal, Ca),
RESEARCH, TEACHING, or OTHER INTERESTS
Surgery
Scopus Publications
Scholar Citations
Scholar h-index
Scholar i10-index
Scopus Publications
Edward Bywater, Laura Martinez, Sosthene Habumuremyi, Faustin Ntirenganya, Emmanuel Williams, Stephen Tabiri, Maria Fourtounas, Adesoji O. Ademuyiwa, Bokossa K. Covalic Melic, Dhruv N. Ghosh,et al.
Elsevier BV
Abdulrasheed A. Nasir, Nurudeen T. Abdur-Raheem, Lukman O. Abdur-Rahman, Taibat T. Ibiyeye, Tolulope O. Sayomi, Olanrewaju T. Adedoyin, and James O. Adeniran
Elsevier BV
, Didier Ahogni, Aristide Ahounou, K. Alassan Boukari, Oswald Gbehade, Thierry K. Hessou, Sinama Nindopa, M. J. Bienvenue Nontonwanou, Nafissatou Orou Guessou, Arouna Sambo,et al.
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Abstract Background Cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCT) present challenges regarding risks of bias and chance imbalances by arm. This paper reports strategies to minimise and monitor biases and imbalances in the ChEETAh cRCT. Methods ChEETAh was an international cRCT (hospitals as clusters) evaluating whether changing sterile gloves and instruments prior to abdominal wound closure reduces surgical site infection at 30 days postoperative. ChEETAh planned to recruit 12,800 consecutive patients from 64 hospitals in seven low-middle income countries. Eight strategies to minimise and monitor bias were pre-specified: (1) minimum of 4 hospitals per country; (2) pre-randomisation identification of units of exposure (operating theatres, lists, teams or sessions) within clusters; (3) minimisation of randomisation by country and hospital type; (4) site training delivered after randomisation; (5) dedicated ‘warm-up week’ to train teams; (6) trial specific sticker and patient register to monitor consecutive patient identification; (7) monitoring characteristics of patients and units of exposure; and (8) low-burden outcome-assessment. Results This analysis includes 10,686 patients from 70 clusters. The results aligned to the eight strategies were (1) 6 out of 7 countries included ≥ 4 hospitals; (2) 87.1% (61/70) of hospitals maintained their planned operating theatres (82% [27/33] and 92% [34/37] in the intervention and control arms); (3) minimisation maintained balance of key factors in both arms; (4) post-randomisation training was conducted for all hospitals; (5) the ‘warm-up week’ was conducted at all sites, and feedback used to refine processes; (6) the sticker and trial register were maintained, with an overall inclusion of 98.1% (10,686/10,894) of eligible patients; (7) monitoring allowed swift identification of problems in patient inclusion and key patient characteristics were reported: malignancy (20.3% intervention vs 12.6% control), midline incisions (68.4% vs 58.9%) and elective surgery (52.4% vs 42.6%); and (8) 0.4% (41/9187) of patients refused consent for outcome assessment. Conclusion cRCTs in surgery have several potential sources of bias that include varying units of exposure and the need for consecutive inclusion of all eligible patients across complex settings. We report a system that monitored and minimised the risks of bias and imbalances by arm, with important lessons for future cRCTs within hospitals.
James C Glasbey, Bryar Kadir, Adesoji O Ademuyiwa, Adewale O Adisa, Aneel Bhangu, Peter Brocklehurst, Sohini Chakrabortee, Pollyanna Hardy, Ewen Harrison, JC Allen Ingabire,et al.
Elsevier BV
, Adewale Adisa, Michael Bahrami-Hessari, Aneel Bhangu, Christina George, Dhruv Ghosh, James Glasbey, Parvez Haque, J C Allen Ingabire, Sivesh Kathir Kamarajah,et al.
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries.
, James Glasbey, Adesoji Ademuyiwa, Alisha Bhatt, Bruce Biccard, Jane Blazeby, Peter Brocklehurst, Sohini Chakrabortee, JC Allen Ingabire, Francis Moïse Dossou,et al.
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Abstract Background The Bluebelle Wound Healing Questionnaire (WHQ) is a universal-reporter outcome measure developed in the UK for remote detection of surgical-site infection after abdominal surgery. This study aimed to explore cross-cultural equivalence, acceptability, and content validity of the WHQ for use across low- and middle-income countries, and to make recommendations for its adaptation. Methods This was a mixed-methods study within a trial (SWAT) embedded in an international randomized trial, conducted according to best practice guidelines, and co-produced with community and patient partners (TALON-1). Structured interviews and focus groups were used to gather data regarding cross-cultural, cross-contextual equivalence of the individual items and scale, and conduct a translatability assessment. Translation was completed into five languages in accordance with Mapi recommendations. Next, data from a prospective cohort (SWAT) were interpreted using Rasch analysis to explore scaling and measurement properties of the WHQ. Finally, qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated using a modified, exploratory, instrumental design model. Results In the qualitative phase, 10 structured interviews and six focus groups took place with a total of 47 investigators across six countries. Themes related to comprehension, response mapping, retrieval, and judgement were identified with rich cross-cultural insights. In the quantitative phase, an exploratory Rasch model was fitted to data from 537 patients (369 excluding extremes). Owing to the number of extreme (floor) values, the overall level of power was low. The single WHQ scale satisfied tests of unidimensionality, indicating validity of the ordinal total WHQ score. There was significant overall model misfit of five items (5, 9, 14, 15, 16) and local dependency in 11 item pairs. The person separation index was estimated as 0.48 suggesting weak discrimination between classes, whereas Cronbach’s α was high at 0.86. Triangulation of qualitative data with the Rasch analysis supported recommendations for cross-cultural adaptation of the WHQ items 1 (redness), 3 (clear fluid), 7 (deep wound opening), 10 (pain), 11 (fever), 15 (antibiotics), 16 (debridement), 18 (drainage), and 19 (reoperation). Changes to three item response categories (1, not at all; 2, a little; 3, a lot) were adopted for symptom items 1 to 10, and two categories (0, no; 1, yes) for item 11 (fever). Conclusion This study made recommendations for cross-cultural adaptation of the WHQ for use in global surgical research and practice, using co-produced mixed-methods data from three continents. Translations are now available for implementation into remote wound assessment pathways.
M. Monahan, J. Glasbey, T.E. Roberts, S. Jowett, T. Pinkney, A. Bhangu, D.G. Morton, A.R. de la Medina, D. Ghosh, A.O. Ademuyiwa,et al.
Elsevier BV
James C Glasbey, Tom EF Abbott, Adesoji Ademuyiwa, Adewale Adisa, Ehab AlAmeer, Sattar Alshryda, Alexis P Arnaud, Brittany Bankhead-Kendall, M K Abou Chaar, Daoud Chaudhry,et al.
Elsevier BV
IntroductionChildhood cancer is a leading cause of death. It is unclear whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted childhood cancer mortality. In this study, we aimed to establish all-cause mortality rates for childhood cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the factors associated with mortality.MethodsProspective cohort study in 109 institutions in 41 countries. Inclusion criteria: children <18 years who were newly diagnosed with or undergoing active treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, retinoblastoma, Wilms tumour, glioma, osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, medulloblastoma and neuroblastoma. Of 2327 cases, 2118 patients were included in the study. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 30 days, 90 days and 12 months.ResultsAll-cause mortality was 3.4% (n=71/2084) at 30-day follow-up, 5.7% (n=113/1969) at 90-day follow-up and 13.0% (n=206/1581) at 12-month follow-up. The median time from diagnosis to multidisciplinary team (MDT) plan was longest in low-income countries (7 days, IQR 3–11). Multivariable analysis revealed several factors associated with 12-month mortality, including low-income (OR 6.99 (95% CI 2.49 to 19.68); p<0.001), lower middle income (OR 3.32 (95% CI 1.96 to 5.61); p<0.001) and upper middle income (OR 3.49 (95% CI 2.02 to 6.03); p<0.001) country status and chemotherapy (OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.86); p=0.008) and immunotherapy (OR 0.27 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.91); p=0.035) within 30 days from MDT plan. Multivariable analysis revealed laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 5.33 (95% CI 1.19 to 23.84); p=0.029) was associated with 30-day mortality.ConclusionsChildren with cancer are more likely to die within 30 days if infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, timely treatment reduced odds of death. This report provides crucial information to balance the benefits of providing anticancer therapy against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children with cancer.
, Michel Adamina, Adesoji Ademuyiwa, Adewale Adisa, Aneel A Bhangu, Ana Minaya Bravo, Miguel F Cunha, Sameh Emile, Dhruva Ghosh, James C Glasbey,et al.
Wiley
The SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non‐delayed surgery.
Prasanna Gomes, Jacqueline Montoya Vasquez, Daniel H Rhee, S. Cooper and Y. Kara
BMJ
ObjectivesPaediatric cancer is a leading cause of death for children. Children in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) were four times more likely to die than children in high-income countries (HICs). This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic had affected the delivery of healthcare services worldwide, and exacerbated the disparity in paediatric cancer outcomes between LMICs and HICs.DesignA multicentre, international, collaborative cohort study.Setting91 hospitals and cancer centres in 39 countries providing cancer treatment to paediatric patients between March and December 2020.ParticipantsPatients were included if they were under the age of 18 years, and newly diagnosed with or undergoing active cancer treatment for Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, Wilms’ tumour, sarcoma, retinoblastoma, gliomas, medulloblastomas or neuroblastomas, in keeping with the WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer.Main outcome measureAll-cause mortality at 30 days and 90 days.Results1660 patients were recruited. 219 children had changes to their treatment due to the pandemic. Patients in LMICs were primarily affected (n=182/219, 83.1%). Relative to patients with paediatric cancer in HICs, patients with paediatric cancer in LMICs had 12.1 (95% CI 2.93 to 50.3) and 7.9 (95% CI 3.2 to 19.7) times the odds of death at 30 days and 90 days, respectively, after presentation during the COVID-19 pandemic (p<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, patients with paediatric cancer in LMICs had 15.6 (95% CI 3.7 to 65.8) times the odds of death at 30 days (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic has affected paediatric oncology service provision. It has disproportionately affected patients in LMICs, highlighting and compounding existing disparities in healthcare systems globally that need addressing urgently. However, many patients with paediatric cancer continued to receive their normal standard of care. This speaks to the adaptability and resilience of healthcare systems and healthcare workers globally.
, J. C. Glasbey, R. Moore, A. Ademuyiwa, A. Adisa, B. Biccard, S. Chakrabortee, D. Ghosh, E. Harrison, C. Jones,et al.
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Abstract Background Existing emergency general surgery (EGS) guidelines rarely include evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and may lack relevance to low-resource settings. The aim of this study was to develop global guidelines for EGS that are applicable across all hospitals and health systems. Methods A systematic review and thematic analysis were performed to identify recommendations relating to undifferentiated EGS. Those deemed relevant across all resource settings by an international guideline development panel were included in a four-round Delphi prioritization process and are reported according to International Standards for Clinical Practice Guidelines. The final recommendations were included as essential (baseline measures that should be implemented as a priority) or desirable (some hospitals may lack relevant resources at present but should plan for future implementation). Results After thematic analysis of 38 guidelines with 1396 unique recommendations, 68 recommendations were included in round 1 voting (410 respondents (219 from LMICs)). The final guidelines included eight essential, one desirable, and three critically unwell patient-specific recommendations. Preoperative recommendations included guidance on timely transfers, CT scan pathways, handovers, and discussion with senior surgeons. Perioperative recommendations included surgical safety checklists and recovery room monitoring. Postoperative recommendations included early-warning scores, discharge plans, and morbidity meetings. Recommendations for critically unwell patients included prioritization for theatre, senior team supervision, and high-level postoperative care. Conclusion This pragmatic and representative process created evidence-based global guidelines for EGS that are suitable for resource limited environments around the world.
LO Abdur-Rahman, OA Ojajuni, and TK Raji
Journal of Neonatal Surgery
Background: Abdominal cocoon (AC) is the partial or complete encasement of the intestines and sometimes other abdominal organs by a fibro-collagenous sac causing varied presentations of intestinal obstruction. It has been found in all age groups from neonates to the elderly although neonatal AC is quite rare and only very few cases have been reported. In neonates, the presentation could mimic other causes of partial or complete intestinal obstruction and preoperative diagnosis is usually difficult. Case Presentation: We report an atypical sequela of intestinal malrotation causing neonatal intestinal obstruction due to omental encasement of the small and large bowel. The diagnosis was made intraoperatively though contrast gastrointestinal series suggested the partial obstruction at the duodenal-jejunal level. The patient made a good postoperative recovery after extraction of the bowel from the cocoon (omental sac), partial omentectomy, and Ladd’s procedure. Conclusion: A neonatal abdominal cocoon caused by an omental encasement in a malrotated intestine is a unique presentation and a rare cause of neonatal intestinal obstruction.
Louise HITCHMAN, Matthew MACHIN, and
Edizioni Minerva Medica
BACKGROUND
The COVIDSurg collaborative was an international multicenter prospective analysis of perioperative data from 235 hospitals in 24 countries. It found that perioperative COVID-19 infection was associated with a mortality rate of 24%. At the same time, the COVER study demonstrated similarly high perioperative mortality rates in vascular surgical patients undergoing vascular interventions even without COVID-19, likely associated with the high burden of comorbidity associated with vascular patients. This is a vascular subgroup analysis of the COVIDSurg cohort.
METHODS
All patients with a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 in the 7 days prior to, or in the 30 days following a vascular procedure were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary complications (adult respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary embolism, pneumonia and respiratory failure). Logistic regression was undertaken for dichotomous outcomes.
RESULTS
Overall, 602 patients were included in this subgroup analysis, of which 88.4% were emergencies. The most common operations performed were for vascular-related dialysis access procedures (20.1%, N.=121). The combined 30-day mortality rate was 27.2%. Composite secondary pulmonary outcomes occurred in half of the vascular patients (N.=275, 45.7%).
CONCLUSIONS
Mortality following vascular surgery in COVID positive patients was significantly higher than levels reported pre-pandemic, and similar to that seen in other specialties in the COVIDSurg cohort. Initiatives and surgical pathways that ensure vascular patients are protected from exposure to COVID-19 in the peri-operative period are vital to protect against excess mortality.
, James C Glasbey, Omar Omar, Dmitri Nepogodiev, Ana Minaya-Bravo, Brittany Kay Bankhead-Kendall, Marco Fiore, Kaori Futaba, Alodia Gabre-Kidan, Rohan R Gujjuri,et al.
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Abstract Background Surgical services are preparing to scale up in areas affected by COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the association between preoperative SARS-CoV-2 testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective cancer surgery. Methods This international cohort study included adult patients undergoing elective surgery for cancer in areas affected by SARS-CoV-2 up to 19 April 2020. Patients suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection before operation were excluded. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pulmonary complications at 30 days after surgery. Preoperative testing strategies were adjusted for confounding using mixed-effects models. Results Of 8784 patients (432 hospitals, 53 countries), 2303 patients (26.2 per cent) underwent preoperative testing: 1458 (16.6 per cent) had a swab test, 521 (5.9 per cent) CT only, and 324 (3.7 per cent) swab and CT. Pulmonary complications occurred in 3.9 per cent, whereas SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in 2.6 per cent. After risk adjustment, having at least one negative preoperative nasopharyngeal swab test (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; P = 0.040) was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications. Swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in areas with a high 14-day SARS-CoV-2 case notification rate, but not before minor surgery or in low-risk areas. To prevent one pulmonary complication, the number needed to swab test before major or minor surgery was 18 and 48 respectively in high-risk areas, and 73 and 387 in low-risk areas. Conclusion Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in high SARS-CoV-2 risk areas. There was no proven benefit of swab testing before minor surgery in low-risk areas.
Adesoji O Ademuyiwa, Pollyanna Hardy, Emmy Runigamugabo, Pierre Sodonougbo, Hulrich Behanzin, Sosthène Kangni, Gérard Agboton, Luke Aniakwo Adagrah, Esther Adjei-Acquah, Ato Oppong Acquah,et al.
Elsevier BV
Covid Surg Collaborative
Oxford University Press (OUP)
There is little evidence around the potentially protective role of previous Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination on postoperative mortality in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Prior BCG vaccination did not protect SARS-CoV-2 infected patients against postoperative pulmonary complications and 30-day mortality.
James Glasbey, Adesoji Ademuyiwa, Adewale Adisa, Ehab AlAmeer, Alexis P Arnaud, Faris Ayasra, José Azevedo, Ana Minaya-Bravo, Ainhoa Costas-Chavarri, John Edwards,et al.
Elsevier BV
Background
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.
Methods
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 <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>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.
Findings
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.
Interpretation
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.
Funding
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.
, K A McLean, S K Kamarajah, D Chaudhry, R R Gujjuri, K Raubenheimer, I Trout, E Al Ameer, B Creagh-Brown, E M Harrison,et al.
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Abstract Background This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January–October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P &lt; 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P &lt; 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
GlobalSurg Collaborative Covidsurg Collaborative, Ergin Erginöz, Juan J. Segura-Sampedro and Fardis Vosoughi
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Abstract 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.
Enoch Akowuah, Ruth A. Benson, Edward J. Caruana, Govind Chetty, John Edwards, Stefano Forlani, George Gradinariu, Gavin J. Murphy, Aung Ye Oo, Akshay J. Patel,et al.
Elsevier BV
, James C. Glasbey, Dmitri Nepogodiev, Joana F. F. Simoes, Omar M. Omar, Mary L. Venn, Jonathan P. Evans, Kaori Futaba, Charles H. Knowles, Ana Minaya‐Bravo,et al.
Wiley
Aim This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Method This was an international cohort study of patients undergoing elective colon or rectal cancer resection, without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Centres entered data from their first recorded case of COVID-19 until 19 April 2020. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, postoperative SARS-CoV-2, and a comparison with a pre-pandemic European Society of Coloproctology cohort data. Results From 2073 patients in 40 countries, 1.3% (27/2073) had a defunctioning stoma and 3.0% (63/2073) had an end stoma instead of an anastomosis only. 30-day mortality was 1.8% (38/2073), the incidence of postoperative SARS-CoV-2 was 3.8% (78/2073), and the anastomotic leak rate was 4.9% (86/1738). Mortality was lowest in patients without a leak or SARS-CoV2 (14/1601, 0.9%), and highest in patients with both a leak and SARS-CoV-2 (5/13, 38.5%). Mortality was independently associated with an anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio 6.01, 95% confidence interval 2.58-14.06), postoperative SARS-CoV-2 (16.90, 7.86-36.38), male sex (2.46, 1.01-5.93), age >70 years (2.87, 1.32-6.20), and advanced cancer stage (3.43, 1.16-10.21). Compared to pre-pandemic data, there were fewer anastomotic leaks (4.9% versus 7.7%), an overall shorter length of stay (6 versus 7 days), but higher mortality (1.7% versus 1.1%). Conclusion Surgeons need to further mitigate against both SARS-CoV-2 and anastomotic leak when offering surgery during current and future COVID-19 waves based on patient, operative, and organisational risks.
, Laura Bravo, Dmitri Nepogodiev, James C Glasbey, Elizabeth Li, Joana FF Simoes, Sivesh K Kamarajah, Maria Picciochi, Tom EF Abbott, Adesoji O Ademuyiwa,et al.
Oxford University Press (OUP)
To support the global restart of elective surgery, data from an international prospective cohort study of 8492 patients (69 countries) was analysed using artificial intelligence (machine learning techniques) to develop a predictive score for mortality in surgical patients with SARS-CoV-2. We found that patient rather than operation factors were the best predictors and used these to create the COVIDsurg Mortality Score (https://covidsurgrisk.app). Our data demonstrates that it is safe to restart a wide range of surgical services for selected patients.
James C. Glasbey, Dmitri Nepogodiev, Joana F.F. Simoes, Omar Omar, Elizabeth Li, Mary L. Venn, PGDME, Mohammad K. Abou Chaar, Vita Capizzi, Daoud Chaudhry,et al.
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks.
C. Collaborative
Oxford University Press (OUP)
With at least 28 elective million operations delayed during the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of patients who will require surgery after a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is likely to increase rapidly1. Operating on patients with an active perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection is now known to carry a very high pulmonary complication and mortality rate2. Urgent information is needed to guide whether postponing surgery in patients with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to a clinical benefit, and the optimal length of delay.