Search

Background: The novel coronavirus, SARS‐CoV‐2, caused the COVID‐19 global pandemic. In response, the Australian and New Zealand governments activated their respective emergency plans and hospital frameworks to deal with the potential increased demand on scarce resources. Surgical triage formed an important part of this response to protect the healthcare system's capacity to respond to COVID‐19. Method: A rapid review methodology was adapted to search for all levels of evidence on triaging surgery during the current COVID‐19 outbreak. Searches were limited to PubMed (inception to 10 April 2020) and supplemented with grey literature searches using the Google search engine. Further, relevant articles were also sourced through the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons COVID‐19 Working Group. Recent government advice (May 2020) is also included. Results: This rapid review is a summary of advice from Australian, New Zealand and international speciality groups regarding triaging of surgical cases, as well as the peer‐reviewed literature. The key theme across all jurisdictions was to not compromise clinical judgement and to enable individualized, ethical and patient‐centred care. The topics reported on include implications of COVID‐19 on surgical triage, competing demands on healthcare resources (surgery versus COVID‐19 cases), and the low incidence of COVID‐19 resulting in a possibility to increase surgical caseloads over time. Conclusion: During the COVID‐19 pandemic, urgent and emergency surgery must continue. A carefully staged return of elective surgery should align with a decrease in COVID‐19 caseload. Combining evidence and expert opinion, schemas and recommendations have been proposed to guide this process in Australia and New Zealand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inconsistencies regarding the use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) have raised concerns for the safety of surgical staff during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. This rapid review synthesizes the literature and includes input from clinical experts to provide evidence‐based guidance for surgical services. Methods: The rapid review comprised of targeted searches in PubMed and grey literature. Pertinent findings were discussed by a working group of clinical experts, and consensus recommendations, consistent with Australian and New Zealand Government guidelines, were formulated. Results: There was a paucity of high‐quality primary studies specifically investigating appropriate surgical PPE for healthcare workers treating patients possibly infected with COVID‐19. SARS‐CoV‐2 is capable of aerosol, droplet and fomite transmission, making it essential to augment standard infection control measures with appropriate PPE, especially during surgical emergencies and aerosol‐generating procedures. All biological material should be treated a potential source of SARS‐COV‐2. Staff must have formal training in the use of PPE and should be supervised by a colleague during donning and doffing. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 should wear a surgical mask during transfer to and from theatre. Potential solutions exist in the literature to extend the use of surgical P2/N95 respirators in situations of limited supply. Conclusion: PPE is advised for all high‐risk procedures and when a patient's COVID‐19 status is unknown. Surgical departments should facilitate staggered rostering, remote meeting attendance, and self‐isolation of symptomatic staff. Vulnerable surgical staff should be identified and excluded from operations with a high risk of COVID‐19 infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Long-term effects after COVID-19 may affect surgical safety. This study aimed to evaluate the literature and produce evidence-based guidance regarding the period of delay necessary for adequate recovery of patients following COVID-19 infection before undergoing surgery., Methods: A rapid review was combined with advice from a working group of 10 clinical experts across Australia and New Zealand. MEDLINE, medRxiv and grey literature were searched to 4 October 2020. The level of evidence was stratified according to the National Health and Medical Research Council evidence hierarchy., Results: A total of 1020 records were identified, from which 20 studies (12 peer-reviewed) were included. None were randomized trials. The studies comprised one case-control study (level III-2 evidence), one prospective cohort study (level III-2) and 18 case-series studies (level IV). Follow-up periods containing observable clinical characteristics ranged from 3 to 16 weeks. New or excessive fatigue and breathlessness were the most frequently reported symptoms. SARS-CoV-2 may impact the immune system for multiple months after laboratory confirmation of infection. For patients with past COVID-19 undergoing elective curative surgery for cancer, risks of pulmonary complications and mortality may be lowest at 4 weeks or later after a positive swab., Conclusion: After laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, minor surgery should be delayed for at least 4 weeks and major surgery for 8-12 weeks, if patient outcome is not compromised. Comprehensive preoperative and ongoing assessment must be carried out to ensure optimal clinical decision-making., (© 2021 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.)

Objective: : We report a multicentered randomized controlled trial across Australia and New Zealand comparing laparoscopic-assisted colon resection (LCR) with open colon resection (OCR) for colon cancer., Background: : Colon cancer is a significant worldwide health issue. This trial investigated whether the short-term benefits associated with LCR for colon cancer could be achieved safely, without survival disadvantages, in our region., Methods: : A total of 601 patients with potentially curable colon cancer were randomized to receive LCR or OCR. Primary endpoints were 5-year overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and freedom from recurrence rates, compared using an intention-to-treat analysis., Results: : On April 5, 2010, 587 eligible patients were followed for a median of 5.2 years (range, 1 week-11.4 years) with 5-year confirmed follow-up data for survival and recurrence on 567 (96.6%). Significant differences between the 2 trial groups were as follows: LCR patients were older at randomization, and their pathology specimens showed smaller distal resection margins; OCR patients had some worse pathology parameters, but there were no differences in disease stages. There were no significant differences between the LCR and OCR groups in 5-year follow-up of overall survival (77.7% vs 76.0%, P = 0.64), recurrence-free survival (72.7% vs 71.2%, P = 0.70), or freedom from recurrence (86.2% vs 85.6%, P = 0.85)., Conclusions: : In spite of some differences in short-term surrogate oncological markers, LCR was not inferior to OCR in direct measures of survival and disease recurrence. These findings emphasize the importance of long-term data in formulating evidence-based practice guidelines.

Background: Laparoscopy has revolutionized many abdominal surgical procedures. Laparoscopic colectomy has become increasingly popular. The short- and long-term benefits and satisfactory surgical oncological treatment of colorectal cancer by laparoscopic-assisted resection remain topical. The long-term outcomes of all international randomized controlled trials are still awaited, and short-term outcomes are important in the interim., Methods: Between January 1998 and April 2005, a multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial in patients with colon cancer was conducted. Six hundred and one eligible patients were recruited by 33 surgeons from 31 Australian and New Zealand centers. Patients were allocated to colectomy by either laparoscopic-assisted surgery (n = 294) or open surgery (n = 298). Patient demographics and secondary end-points, such as operative and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and histopathological data, will be presented in this article. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Survival will be reported only as the study matures., Results: Histopathological parameters were similar between the two groups, except in regard to distal resection margins. There was no statistically significant difference found in postoperative complications, reoperation rate, or perioperative mortality. Statistically significant differences in quicker return of gastrointestinal function and shorter hospital stay were identified in favor of laparoscopic-assisted resection. A statistically significant increased rate of infective complications was seen in cases converted from laparoscopic-assisted to open procedures but with no difference in reoperation or in-hospital mortality., Conclusions: Laparoscopic-assisted colonic resection gives significant improvements in return of gastrointestinal function and length of stay, with an increased operative time and no difference in the postoperative complication rate.

This article describes the initiation and implementation of the multicentre Australia and New Zealand prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments of right-sided and left-sided potentially curable colon cancer (Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study). Six hundred and one adult patients were admitted with a clinical diagnosis of a single adenocarcinoma based on a physical examination and colonoscopy, barium enema or computed tomography scan and randomly allocated to either laparoscopic or open surgery. The primary aim of the study is to compare 5-year mortality and tumour recurrence rates between the two groups. Secondary aims include comparisons of safety (intraoperative and early postoperative complications, wound site recurrence, postoperative recovery and 30-day mortality), quality of life, in-hospital costs and short-term mortality and tumour recurrence. The data for 592 patients have been collected. There are currently 3141 person years of follow up. In all 370 patients have been assessed at 5 years. This study shows that large cooperative Australia-New Zealand surgical trials can and should be carried out to address significant clinical issues. When possible, coherence with similar, concurrent international trial protocols ensures broader analyses and applicability of results. It is important to recognize that special attention to sustained funding, surgeon credentialing, clinical protocol standardization, data management, publication policy and the protection of study credibility is required from the outset. The Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study will achieve its aims with 5-year assessments of all entered patients in March 2010.

Background: There is currently a need to assess the reasons for non-entry of eligible patients into surgical randomized controlled trials to determine measures to improve the low recruitment rates in such trials., Methods: Reasons for non-entry of all eligible patients not recruited into the Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study were prospectively recorded using a survey completed by the participating surgeons for a period of 6 months., Results: In the 6-month period of the study, 51 (45%) out of 113 eligible patients examined by the 18 actively participating surgeons were recruited into the trial. Eighty-nine reasons were recorded for the non-entry of the 62 eligible patients. The most commonly recorded reason was preference for one form of surgery (42%) or the surgeon (31%) by the patient (45 patients (73%) in total). This was followed by lack of time (10 patients (16%)), hospital accreditation (7 patients (11%)) or staffing/equipment (6 patients (10%)). Concern about the doctor-patient relationship or causing the patient anxiety was recorded for three (5%) and two (3%) patients, respectively. Recruitment was positively associated with the availability of a data manager (chi2 = 19.91; P < 0.001, odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 9.50 (3.53-25.53)) and negatively associated with an increased caseload (more than five eligible patients seen by the surgeon in the study period) (continuity adjusted chi2 = 16.052; P < 0.001, odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 0.11(0.04-0.30))., Conclusion: Having a preference for one form of surgery by the patient or the surgeon was the most common reason for non-entry of eligible patients in the Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study. Concern about the doctor-patient relationship played a minimal role in determining the outcome of recruitment. Patient and surgeon preferences, caseload and the distribution of supportive staff such as data managers according to patient population density should be considered in the planning of future trials.