Laparoscopic Surgery and the debate on its safety during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review of recommendations

IntroductionThe transmission of COVID-19 virus since the outbreak of viral pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2 gave rise to protective operative measures. Aerosol generating procedures such as laparoscopic surgery are known to be associated with increased risks of viral transmission to the healthcare workers. The safety of laparoscopy during the pandemic was then debated. We aimed to systematically review the literature regarding the safe use of laparoscopy during COVID-19.MethodsWe performed a systematic search using PubMed and ScienceDirect databases from inception to 1st May, 2020. The following search terms were used: ‘‘laparoscopic surgery and COVID-19’’; ‘‘minimally invasive surgery and COVID-19’’. Search items were considered from the nature of the articles, date of publication, aims and findings in relation to use of laparoscopic surgery during COVID-19. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO register for systematic reviews (CRD42020183432).ResultsAltogether, 174 relevant citations were identified and reviewed for this study, of which 22 articles were included. The analysis of the findings in relation to laparoscopic surgery during the pandemic were presented in tabular form. We completed the common recommendations for performing laparoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic in forms of pre-, intra- and postoperative phases.ConclusionThere is no scientific evidence to date for the transmission of COVID-19 by laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopy can be used with precautions because of its benefits compared to open surgery. If safe, conservative management is the primary alternative during the pandemic. We concluded that recommended precautions should be respected while performing laparoscopy during the pandemic.     

Laparoscopic splenectomy: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

Background Although laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) has become the standard approach for most splenectomy cases, some areas still remain controversial. To date, the indications that preclude laparoscopic splenectomy are not clearly defined. In view of this, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has developed clinical practice guidelines for LS. Methods An international expert panel was invited to appraise the current literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations. A consensus development conference using a nominal group process convened in May 2007. Its recommendations were presented at the annual EAES congress in Athens, Greece, on 5 July 2007 for discussion and further input. After a further Delphi process between the experts, the final recommendations were agreed upon. Results Laparoscopic splenectomy is indicated for most benign and malignant hematologic diseases independently of the patient’s age and body weight. Preoperative investigation is recommended for obtaining information on spleen size and volume as well as the presence of accessory splenic tissue. Preoperative vaccination against meningococcal, pneumococcal, and Haemophilus influenzae type B infections is recommended in elective cases. Perioperative anticoagulant prophylaxis with subcutaneous heparin should be administered to all patients and prolonged anticoagulant prophylaxis to high-risk patients. The choice of approach (supine [anterior], semilateral or lateral) is left to the surgeon’s preference and concomitant conditions. In cases of massive splenomegaly, the hand-assisted technique should be considered to avoid conversion to open surgery and to reduce complication rates. The expert panel still considered portal hypertension and major medical comorbidities as contraindications to LS. Conclusion Despite a lack of level 1 evidence, LS is a safe and advantageous procedure in experienced hands that has displaced open surgery for almost all indications. To support the clinical evidence, further randomized controlled trials on different issues are mandatory.     

2018 update of French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) recommendations about the everyday management of patients with spondyloarthritis

Objective

To update French Society for Rheumatology recommendations about the management in clinical practice of patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA). SpA is considered across the range of clinical phenotypes (axial, peripheral, and entheseal) and concomitant manifestations. Psoriatic arthritis is included among the SpA phenotypes.

Current state of benefits of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in spinal surgeries: A systematic review of the literature

IntroductionRecent years have been characterized by a great technological and clinical development in spine surgery. In particular, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs, started to gain interest also in this surgical field. Here we tried to analyse the current state of art of ERAS technique in spine surgery.Material and methodA systematic review of the literature has been performed in order to find all the possible inclusions. Using the PRISMA guidelines, a search of the PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews, Embase, Medline databases was conducted to identify all full-text articles in the English-language literature describing the use of ERAS programs or techniques for spine surgery in adult patients.ResultsOut of the 827 studies found, only 21 met the inclusion criteria has been retained to be included in the present study. The most frequently benefits of ERAS protocols were shorter hospitalisations (n = 15), and decreased complication rates (n = 8) lower postoperative pain scores (n = 4). These benefits were seen in the 3 main categories considered: lumbar spine surgeries, surgeries for correction of scoliosis or deformity, and surgeries of the cervical spine.ConclusionThere are an arising amount of data showing that the use of ERAS programs could be helpful in reducing the days of hospitalizations and the number of complications for certain spinal procedures and in a highly selected group of patients. Despite the large interest on the topic; there is an important lack of high level of scientific evidences. Because of that, there is the need to encourage the design and creation of new randomized clinical trials that will validate the present findings.     

Joint 2022 European Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for the prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in thoracic surgery

BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a potentially fatal but preventable postoperative complication. Thoracic oncology patients undergoing surgical resection, often after multimodality induction therapy, represent among the highest risk groups for postoperative VTE. Currently there are no VTE prophylaxis guidelines specific to these thoracic surgery patients. Evidenced-based recommendations will help clinicians manage and mitigate risk of VTE in the postoperative period and inform best practice.ObjectiveThese joint evidence-based guidelines from The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons aim to inform clinicians and patients in decisions about prophylaxis to prevent VTE in patients undergoing surgical resection for lung or esophageal cancer.MethodsThe American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included broad membership to minimize potential bias when formulating recommendations. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to public comment.ResultsThe panel agreed on 24 recommendations focused on pharmacological and mechanical methods for prophylaxis in patients undergoing lobectomy and segmentectomy, pneumonectomy, and esophagectomy, as well as extended resections for lung cancer.ConclusionsThe certainty of the supporting evidence for the majority of recommendations was judged as low or very low, largely due to a lack of direct evidence for thoracic surgery. The panel made conditional recommendations for use of parenteral anticoagulation for VTE prevention, in combination with mechanical methods, over no prophylaxis for cancer patients undergoing anatomic lung resection or esophagectomy. Other key recommendations include: conditional recommendations for using parenteral anticoagulants over direct oral anticoagulants, with use of direct oral anticoagulants suggested only in the context of clinical trials; conditional recommendation for using extended prophylaxis for 28 to 35 days over in-hospital prophylaxis only for patients at moderate or high risk of thrombosis; and conditional recommendations for VTE screening in patients undergoing pneumonectomy and esophagectomy. Future research priorities include the role of preoperative thromboprophylaxis and the role of risk stratification to guide use of extended prophylaxis.