Please wait...


GlobalSurg Collaborative.BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Dec;5(12):e003429.

Introduction: Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). However, there is a lack of data available about SSI in children worldwide, especially from low-income and middle-income countries. This study aimed to estimate the incidence of SSI in children and associations between SSI and morbidity across human development settings.

Methods: A multicentre, international, prospective, validated cohort study of children aged under 16 years undergoing clean-contaminated, contaminated or dirty gastrointestinal surgery. Any hospital in the world providing paediatric surgery was eligible to contribute data between January and July 2016. The primary outcome was the incidence of SSI by 30 days. Relationships between explanatory variables and SSI were examined using multilevel logistic regression. Countries were stratified into high development, middle development and low development groups using the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI).

Results: Of 1159 children across 181 hospitals in 51 countries, 523 (45·1%) children were from high HDI, 397 (34·2%) from middle HDI and 239 (20·6%) from low HDI countries. The 30-day SSI rate was 6.3% (33/523) in high HDI, 12·8% (51/397) in middle HDI and 24·7% (59/239) in low HDI countries. SSI was associated with higher incidence of 30-day mortality, intervention, organ-space infection and other HAIs, with the highest rates seen in low HDI countries. Median length of stay in patients who had an SSI was longer (7.0 days), compared with 3.0 days in patients who did not have an SSI. Use of laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower SSI rates, even after accounting for HDI.

Conclusion: The odds of SSI in children is nearly four times greater in low HDI compared with high HDI countries. Policies to reduce SSI should be prioritised as part of the wider global agenda.



Abahssain H, Moukafih B, Essangri H, Mrabti H, Meddah B, Guessous F, Fadhil FZ, Souadka A, Errihani H.
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2021 Jan;27(1):143-149.

Background: Ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy (IIE) is a rare and serious adverse reaction. Thus far, no standard medication has been documentedto be efficient in the reversal of IIE, and while ifosfamide infusion interruption and hydration are recommended, methylene blue (MB) administration remains controversial.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records to assess cases with IIE after ifosfamide infusion. We included all patients having received an ifosfamide infusion during their hospitalization in the medical oncology unit of the National Institute of Oncology in Rabat, Morocco, between September 2016 and September 2017. We subsequently conducted a literature review to determine the role of MB in IIE by searching PubMed using the terms “Methylene Blue” and “Ifosfamide”.

Results: A total of 88 patients received ifosfamide, and four patients had IIE. Ifosfamide infusion was stopped immediately after the IIE occurrence, and patients underwent renal function correction with hydration. All patients received MB infusion, and three patients had an improvement of their neurological status. As regards the literature review, 34 articles were reviewed and 16 items were included in the review. Overall, 38 (65.5%) patients received MB infusion and 28 (75.6%) patients responded favorably to the treatment.

Conclusions: Methylene blue can be used as a treatment for IIE owing to the severity of the IIE as well as absence of standard medication. Nonetheless, side effects such as serotonergic syndrome should be investigated. More broadly, prospective studies and controlled trials are needed to explore the contribution of MB in IIE management and encourage its use.



Essangri H, Sabir M, Benkabbou A, Majbar MA, Amrani L, Ghannam A, Lekehal B, Mohsine R, Souadka A.
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2021 Jan;104(1):95-102.

The COVID-19 pandemic has great consequences on mental health. We aimed to assess medical students’ psychological condition and influencing factors as a baseline evidence for interventions promoting their mental wellbeing. We conducted an online survey from April 8 to April 18, 2020 to examine the mental health of medical students by the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire, seven-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, seven-item Insomnia Severity Index, and six-item Kessler psychological distress scale. Factors associated with mental health outcomes were identified by multivariable logistic regression analysis. Five hundred forty-nine students completed the survey; 341 (62.3%), 410 (74.6%), 344 (62.6%), and 379 (69%) reported anxiety, depression, insomnia, and distress, respectively. Female students, living in high COVID-19 prevalence locations, more than 25 days confinement, psychiatric consult history, and being in a preclinical level of studies had higher median scores and severe symptom levels. Multivariable logistic regression showed female gender as a risk factor for severe symptoms of anxiety (odds ratio [OR]: 1.653; 95% CI: 1.020-2.679; P = 0.042), depression (OR: 2.167; 95% CI: 1.435-3.271; P < 0.001), insomnia (OR: 1.830; 95% CI: 1.176-2.847; P = 0.007), and distress (OR: 1.994; 95% CI: 1.338-2.972; P = 0.001); preclinical level of enrollment as a risk factor for depression (OR: 0.679; 95% CI: 0.521-0.885; P = 0.004), insomnia (OR: 0.720; 95% CI: 0.545-0.949; P = 0.02), and distress (OR: 0.650; 95% CI: 0.499-0.847; P = 0.001), whereas living in high COVID-19 prevalence locations was a risk factor for severe anxiety (OR: 1.628; 95% CI: 1.090-2.432; P = 0.017) and depression (OR: 1.438; 95% CI: 1.002-2.097; P = 0.05). Currently, medical students experience high levels of mental health symptoms, especially female students, those at a preclinical level and living in regions with a high prevalence of COVID-19 cases. Screening for mental health issues, psychological support, and long-term follow-up could alleviate the burden and protect future physicians.



Souadka A, Essangri H, Boualaoui I, Ghannam A, Benkabbou A, Amrani L, Mohsine R, Majbar MA.
PLoS One. 2020 Nov 24;15(11):e0242727.

Introduction: The insertion of an implantable central venous access is performed according to a variety of approaches which allow the access to the subclavian vein, yet the supraclavicular technique has been underused and never compared to the other methods. The aim of this study was to testify on the efficacy and safety of the subclavian puncture without ultrasound guidance « Yoffa » in comparison with the classical infraclavicular approach (ICA).

Material and methods: This is a retrospective study with prospective data collection on patients followed at the national oncology institute for cancer, in the period extending from May 1st 2017 to August 31st 2017. All patients had a totally implantable central venous access device inserted by the same surgeon AS for chemotherapy administration and demographic characteristics, as well as procedure details were examined. The primary outcomes were the intraoperative complications, while the secondary outcomes represented immediate postoperative and mid-term complications (at 15 months of follow up). Outcomes were compared between techniques by means of non parametric tests and the Fischer test.

Results: Our study included 135 patients with 70 patients undergoing the subclavian technique, while 65 were subject to the infraclavicular approach. Both groups had no statistically significant demographic characteristics. The number of vein puncture attempts exceeding once, the accidental artery puncture and operative time were more significant in the ICA group; (39,6 vs 17,6 p = 0,01) (9.2% vs 0; p = 0,01) and (27± 13 vs 23± 8min, p = 0.045) respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the immediate and midterm complication rate between the two methods 1(1,4) vs 2 (3) p = 0.5.

Conclusion: In case of unavailability of ultrasonographic guidance, the use of the supra-clavicular landmarks approach is linked to higher success rates and less arterial punctures, thereby proving to be a safe and reliable approach.



COVIDSurg Collaborative.
Cancer. 2021 Jul 15;127(14):2476-2488.

Background: The aims of this study were to provide data on the safety of head and neck cancer surgery currently being undertaken during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Methods: This international, observational cohort study comprised 1137 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer undergoing primary surgery with curative intent in 26 countries. Factors associated with severe pulmonary complications in COVID-19-positive patients and infections in the surgical team were determined by univariate analysis.

Results: Among the 1137 patients, the commonest sites were the oral cavity (38%) and the thyroid (21%). For oropharynx and larynx tumors, nonsurgical therapy was favored in most cases. There was evidence of surgical de-escalation of neck management and reconstruction. Overall 30-day mortality was 1.2%. Twenty-nine patients (3%) tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within 30 days of surgery; 13 of these patients (44.8%) developed severe respiratory complications, and 3.51 (10.3%) died. There were significant correlations with an advanced tumor stage and admission to critical care. Members of the surgical team tested positive within 30 days of surgery in 40 cases (3%). There were significant associations with operations in which the patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 30 days, with a high community incidence of SARS-CoV-2, with screened patients, with oral tumor sites, and with tracheostomy.

Conclusions: Head and neck cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era appears safe even when surgery is prolonged and complex. The overlap in COVID-19 between patients and members of the surgical team raises the suspicion of failures in cross-infection measures or the use of personal protective equipment.

Lay summary: Head and neck surgery is safe for patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic even when it is lengthy and complex. This is significant because concerns over patient safety raised in many guidelines appear not to be reflected by outcomes, even for those who have other serious illnesses or require complex reconstructions. Patients subjected to suboptimal or nonstandard treatments should be carefully followed up to optimize their cancer outcomes. The overlap between patients and surgeons testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is notable and emphasizes the need for fastidious cross-infection controls and effective personal protective equipment.



COVIDSurg Collaborative; GlobalSurg Collaborative.
Anaesthesia. 2021 Jun;76(6):748-758. doi: 10.1111/anae.15458. Epub 2021 Mar 9.

Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.



COVIDSurg Collaborative, GlobalSurg Collaborative.

Br J Surg. 2021 Mar 24:znab101.

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.



COVIDSurg Collaborative Co-authors.

Br J Surg. 2021 Jul 6:znab183.

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.



COVIDSurg Collaborative; GlobalSurg Collaborative.

Anaesthesia. 2021 Aug 9. doi: 10.1111/anae.15560. Online ahead of print.

We aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05-1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4-7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04-1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11-1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care.


Copyright by Digital Zone 2018. All rights reserved.