Is minor surgery safe during the COVID-19 pandemic? A multi-disciplinary study.

BACKGROUND: To assess the risk of postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: The CONCEPTION study was a cohort, multidisciplinary study conducted at Conception University Hospital, in France, from March 17th to May 11th, 2020. Our study included all adult patients who underwent minor surgery in one of the seven surgical departments of our hospital: urology, digestive, plastic, gynecological, otolaryngology, gynecology or maxillofacial surgery. Preoperative self-isolation, clinical assessment using a standardized questionnaire, physical examination, nasopharyngeal RT-PCR and chest CT scan performed the day before surgery were part of our active prevention strategy. The main outcome was the occurrence of a SARS-CoV-2 infection within 21 days following surgery. The COVID-19 status of patients after discharge was updated during the postoperative consultation and to ensure the accuracy of data, all patients were contacted again by telephone.
RESULTS: A total of 551 patients from six different specialized surgical Departments in our tertiary care center were enrolled in our study. More than 99% (546/551) of included patients underwent a complete preoperative Covid-19 screening including RT-PCR testing and chest CT scan upon admission to the Hospital. All RT-PCR tests were negative and in 12 cases (2.2%), preoperative chest CT scans detected pulmonary lesions consistent with the diagnosis criteria for COVID-19. No scheduled surgery was postponed. One patient (0.2%) developed a SARS-CoV-2 infection 20 days after a renal transplantation. No readmission or COVID-19 -related death within 30 days from surgery was recorded.
CONCLUSIONS: Minor surgery remained safe in the COVID-19 Era, as long as all appropriate protective measures were implemented. These data could be useful to public Health Authorities in order to improve surgical patient flow during a pandemic.

Introduction

From December 2019 onwards, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has quickly spread worldwide, leading to a global pandemic, and drastically altering everyday life and clinical practices [1]. Adequate testing, early diagnosis, isolation and contact tracing have proved to be key measures to control the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 [2]. Nasopharyngeal reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) is currently the most commonly used method for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) [3]. In order to offset the higher false negative rate for SARS-CoV-2 RT- PCR, chest Computed Tomography (CT) scan has been proposed as an interesting option for COVID-19 screening and early diagnosis [4, 5]. Based on current evidence, CT scans have been shown to have a higher sensitivity earlier in the time course of infection than conventional RT-PCR in symptomatic patients. However, their utility is still being debated in asymptomatic patients, especially regarding preoperative surgical patients [6].

Public Health authorities recommend reducing surgical activities during pandemic peaks. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced surgical departments to re-schedule their activity, giving priority to urgent procedures and non-deferrable oncological cases [7]. Only a very few studies have focused on the collateral effects of the COVID-19 pandemic [8-10]. Furthermore, delaying non-urgent surgical procedures has resulted in a significant backlog in elective surgeries. This has not only impacted the capacity of the surgical system but also aroused in many patients the fear of contracting COVID-19 in hospital [11].

Since the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in France, in joint agreement with the Méditerranée Infectious Disease Research Institute (IHU), we have implemented rigorous preoperative screening as part of a set of active preventive measures including a systematic RT-PCR test and a chest CT scan performed the day before surgery. The aim of the present study is to assess the postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection risk when systematic, active, preventive measures are duly applied.

Materials & method

Study population

The study was submitted to the Ethics Committee of the French Society for Urology. After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval (RGPD/ Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Marseille, Ap-Hm, n°2020–295), we retrospectively identified all adult patients who underwent mainly minor surgery at Conception University hospital between March 17th and May 11th, 2020. All of the seven surgical departments in our hospital were involved in our study: urology, digestive, plastic, otolaryngology (two departments), gynecology or maxillofacial surgery. No exclusion criteria were applied, as long as patients were operated on during the study period.

The following baseline characteristics were collected from the patients’ electronic medical records: patient age and gender, Body Mass Index (BMI), comorbidities, age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index, residence (home or institution), date of surgery, type of surgery, emergency or scheduled indications, type of anesthesia (general, spinal, local), preoperative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test result, preoperative chest CT scan result, and length of hospital stay.

Perioperative prevention of Covid-19

Preoperative self-isolation at least 7 days before admission was systematically recommended. During the study period, patients were hospitalized in single-patient rooms as much as possible. External visitors were not allowed. Disabled patients were allowed only one support person during their hospital stay. Strict conditions were imposed: a negative RT-PCR test was required, and the support person should remain in the patient’s room.

Verbal informed consent was obtained from all patients before preoperative routine SARS-CoV-2 screening, and patients were aware that these data would be used anonymously for research purposes. In joint agreement with the nosocomial infection control committee and the Méditerranée Infectious Disease Research Institute (IHU), our hospital facility implemented preoperative screening as part of the recommended active preventive measures for COVID-19 during the peak of the pandemic. These measures mainly consisted of social distancing [12], frequent handwashing and disinfection, and the use of personal protective equipment such [13] as gloves, goggles, face shields and masks. All patients were systematically screened for COVID-19 symptoms prior to surgery, on the basis of a standardized questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed in an emergency situation and validated by the local crisis committee of the Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Marseille. It enabled us to look out for previously reported symptoms of COVID-19 such as fever, flu-like syndrome, anosmia, ageusia or digestive symptoms, as well as, for patients who might have been a close contact of someone with COVID-19 (Fig 1). Testing of nasopharyngeal swab specimens by RT-PCR was systematically performed the day before surgery [14]. Then, all patients were systematically subjected to chest CT scan before surgery. In order to be able to perform preoperative screening in each patient, specific time- slots were reserved by the imaging department the day before surgery. Radiographers were trained to acquire images while minimizing pathogen exposure to staff. In a standardized report, two radiographers (with 4 and 30 years of experience, respectively) devised a classification of images into four grades: no abnormalities on Chest CT scan, low, moderate, or high suspicion for COVID-19. On this basis, a multi-disciplinary scientific advisory board was set up so as to be able to provide personalized care to patients.

Fig 1

Preoperative COVID-19 symptom-based screening questionnaire.

Follow-up and endpoint

The patients were operated on in one of the hospital’s seven surgical departments: urology, digestive, plastic, gynecological, otolaryngology, gynecology or maxillofacial surgery. In our hospital, there was no cardiac, vascular, neurological or orthopedic surgery. The primary endpoint of our study was the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection within 21 days postoperatively. Postoperative assessment of COVID-19 symptoms was performed systematically during hospitalization. Patients were discharged and instructed to return to the hospital so as to get retested for COVID-19 with RT-PCR if any specific symptom developed in the meantime. In order to update the COVID-19 status of discharged patients all of them were assessed during the postoperative consultation which could be either a telemedicine consultation or a face-to-face consultation. In order to ensure the accuracy of our data, all patients were phoned again in December 2020. A patient was considered a confirmed COVID-19 case if he/she had a positive RT-PCR test result or developed specific pulmonary lesions visible on a chest CT scan performed after surgery.

Data analysis

Demographic data, preoperative clinical information, perioperative and follow-up variables were extracted from E-medical records and recorded in a dedicated database. Descriptive statistics were conducted on available variables. Quantitative variables were reported as medians and interquartile ranges [IQR]. Categorical variables were described by numbers and percentages. All statistical analyses were performed using R statistical software Version 4.0.2. (Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

Between March 17 and May 11, 2020, 551 surgical patients from six different specialized surgical Departments in our University Hospital were included in our study. Most hospitalized patients had been advised to stay at home prior to surgery (n = 513, 93.1%). 38 patients (6.9%) resided in a nursing home or a rehabilitation center.

Patient baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. In the whole cohort, the median age was 63 (IQR 51–71) years, 254 female patients (46.1%) were included, the median BMI was 24.6 (IQR 21.7–28), and the median Charlson Comorbidity score was 3 (IQR 1–4). The main comorbidities were: circulatory diseases (n = 212, 38.5%), arterial hypertension (n = 200, 36.3%), and respiratory diseases (n = 76, 13.8%). Regarding the types of surgery, 523/551 (94.9%) patients had an elective surgery and 276 (50.1%) had oncological surgery. General anesthesia was the most commonly used type of anesthesia (n = 524, 95.1%).

Table 1

Baseline characteristics upon admission.

	Overall cohort (n = 551)
Gender, n (%)
Male	297 (53.9)
Female	254 (46.1)
Median (IQR) age, years	63 (51–71)
Median (IQR) Body mass index	24.6 (21.7–28)
Median (IQR) age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index	3 (1–4)
Residence, n (%)
Home	513 (93.1)
Institution	38 (6.9)
Comorbidity, n (%)
Cardiovascular	212 (38.5)
Pulmonary	76 (13.8)
Hepatic	26 (4.7)
Neurological	50 (9)
Diabetes mellitus	82 (14.9)
Arterial High Blood Pressure	200 (36.3)
Immunosuppression	56 (10.2)
Type of surgery, n (%)
Acute Surgical Emergencies	28 (5.1)
Elective surgery	523 (94.9)
Cancer surgery, n (%)
Yes	276 (50.1)
No	275 (49.9)
Renal transplantation, n (%)	15 (2.7)
Type of anesthesia, n (%)
General	524 (95.1)
Spinal	12 (2.2)
Local	15 (2.7)

As shown in Table 2, more than 99% of included patients had a complete preoperative screening including RT-PCR test and chest CT scan upon admission. Seven patients only had not been subjected to RT-PCR tests and chest CT scans before surgery. All RT-PCR tests proved negative. In 537 cases (97.5%), preoperative chest CT scan showed no obvious abnormalities. Conversely, it showed that twelve patients with negative RT-PCR tests had low or moderate suspicion of COVID-19. All of them benefitted from multi-disciplinary personalized care, none of them had their surgery postponed. In 60 patients, incidental findings were diagnosed. In total, 13 lung lesions suspect of malignancy were found. A total of 32 pulmonary nodules requiring follow-up were reported. Lastly, interstitial lung disease (n = 5), aortic aneurysm (n = 4), pleural effusion (n = 4), thyroid goiter (n = 1) and dilatation of the renal cavities (n = 1) were fortuitously discovered. Any incidental finding was reported to the general practitioner.

Table 2

Preoperative screening test results.

	Overall cohort (n = 551)
RT-PCR, n (%)
Negative	546 (99.1)
Positive	0 (0)
Not performed	5 (0.9)
CT chest scan, n (%)
Normal	537 (97.5)
Low suspicion for COVID-19	9 (1.6)
Moderate suspicion for COVID-19	3 (0.5)
High suspicion for COVID-19	0 (0)
Not performed	2 (0.4)
Incidentaloma, n (%)
No	460 (89.1)
Yes	60 (10.9)

RT-PCR: Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction; CT: Computed Tomography.

Surgical outcomes are shown in Table 3. The median length of stay was 3 days (IQR 2–4). Due to the closure of the outpatient surgery department during the study period, only six patients were treated as outpatients and were discharged from hospital the same day. A comprehensive 30 day- patient follow-up was performed. One patient developed symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 postoperatively, repeated PCR testing turned positive. This patient was hospitalized for a renal transplantation in our nephrology department which is located in another building distinct from the building where our surgical departments are located. He was one of the 2 patients on whom a chest CT scan had not been performed. The immunosuppressed patient developed nosocomial COVID-19 within twenty days of the procedure and required intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit. Finally, no readmission or COVID-19-related death was recorded within 30 days of surgery.

Table 3

Postoperative outcomes.

	Overall cohort (n = 551)
Median (IQR) length of stay, days	3 (2–4)
21-d infection with SARS-CoV-2, n (%)	1 (0.2)
30-d readmission, n (%)
Non-COVID-19-related	17 (3.1)
COVID-19 related	0 (0)
30-d mortality, n (%)
Non-COVID-19-related	0 (0)
COVID-19 related	0 (0)

Discussion

Our results have shown that surgery remained safe in COVID-19 Era, as long as all recommended precautions were applied. Our study period corresponds to the first epidemic peak of COVID-19 in France, when the highest number of COVID-19 -related deaths was recorded [12]. Our University Hospital employs 3142 healthcare workers and has a 862- bed -capacity. During the COVID-19 outbreak in the Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur region in France, our hospital was actively involved in the governmental national action plan for confronting the COVID-19 pandemic [15]. Ten additional intensive care beds and 50 hospital beds (distributed in four units) were dedicated to COVID-19 patients. Government provisions promoted outpatient surgery in order to limit the risk of perioperative infection. However, due to a staff shortage in COVID-19 dedicated units, outpatient caregivers were requisitioned and the outpatient surgery department was temporarily closed. Although the estimated median incubation period of COVID-19 is approximately 5 days, delayed symptoms might appear, up to 21 days after exposure to the virus [16]. Therefore, the chosen primary endpoint of our study was a 21 day -period after surgery. The only patient who developed SARS-CoV-2 infection developed symptoms 20 days after receiving a kidney transplant. He was hospitalized in a separate building distinct from the building where our surgical departments are located and thus, no cluster was declared in our care units.

The risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection has become a sad reality and hospital management has had to adjust day -to—day by issuing guidelines based on COVID-19 pandemic knowledge and behaviors [17]. Various studies have demonstrated that elderly patients admitted in intensive care units are more likely to acquire nosocomial COVID-19 [18, 19]. However, the risks of postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection have been scarcely evaluated. Our study conducted at Conception University Hospital reflects the efforts of an entire hospital to protect patients and healthcare professionals during the initial phase of the pandemic outbreak in France in March 2020. Our results highlight the value of a rigorous preoperative screening as part of a set of active preventive measures against nosocomial transmission of COVID-19. Healthcare professionals’ compliance with the above mentioned preoperative COVID -19 screening protocol was high since more than 99% of included patients had a RT-PCR test and underwent a chest CT scan the day before surgery. Our postoperative COVID-19 infection rate of 0.2% compares favorably with previously reported rates ranging from 1 to 7% [20-23]. Furthermore, no postoperative COVID-19 -related death was reported. Compared with previous studies, the main strength of our study lies in routine use of RT-PCR tests in order to screen patients on admission the day before surgery. It is interesting to note that the high risk of false negative RT-PCR test results at initial testing for COVID-19 [24] apparently had no impact on our results. The medical staff members of the Méditerranée Infection Research Institute are well trained in performing RT-PCR tests, and this may have influenced our results.

The originality of the present study also lies in the use of preoperative chest CT scan as a screening tool for COVID -19 in asymptomatic surgical patients. Out of the 549 patients who had a preoperative chest CT scan, 12 asymptomatic cases were reported. These patients tested negative through RT-PCR and had an abnormal scan (Table 2). All procedures were performed as scheduled and no patient developed any symptoms of COVID-19 postoperatively. Chest CT scan is currently considered as a relevant COVID-19 screening tool in surgical patients who are symptomatic and tested negative for SARS-COV-2 by conventional RT-PCR [6]. However, for asymptomatic surgical patients, no clear medical benefit has been shown in the use of routine scanning of preoperative patients in our case series. According to a previous study [25], in this context, in a small proportion of cases, CT scan could give false- positives resulting in unnecessary delay in surgery, and therefore should not be recommended as a COVID-19 screening tool in asymptomatic surgical patients.

The limitations of the present study should also be acknowledged. Its main limitation lies in its retrospective design. Then, the absence of a control group with similar baseline characteristics including surgical patients screened without a RT-PCR test or a chest CT scan prevents us from drawing any firm conclusions on the relative merits of these COVID-19 screening tools in surgical patients. Furthermore, due to a lack of centralized review of initial CT scans, there remains a risk of inter- and intra-reader variability in chest CT scan assessment, despite using a standardized classification of CT scan results. Finally, the present study reports on a very heterogeneous surgical population and covers a wide range of planned elective surgeries and a variety of emergency surgical presentations. However, our study population consisted mainly of patients who underwent minor elective surgery. This observation should be related to a significant decrease in acute surgical emergencies as observed in previous studies found in the literature [26]. In addition, major surgeries such as cardiac, vascular or neurological surgeries requiring postoperative resuscitation care were not included in our series. Nevertheless, our results are likely to be generalizable to other hospitals and constitute a comprehensive set of data on which a future preoperative screening protocol for COVID-19 could be based.

Our study also has several strengths and could be instrumental in helping clinicians and public health authorities detect COVID-19 in surgical patients. Preoperative self-isolation, clinical assessment using a standardized questionnaire, and RT-PCR tests the day before surgery seem to be effective in minimizing COVID-19- related surgical risk. To update the COVID-19 status of discharged patients, all patients were assessed during the postoperative consultation and in order to ensure the high accuracy of our data, all patients were phoned again in December 2020. The postponement of elective procedures during the peaks of the pandemic was justified by a lack of staff (due to the redeployment of medical staff members to COVID-19 units) and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. Our study has shown that hospital stay during a pandemic peak can remain safe, and therefore only a limited number of surgeries might have to be postponed if additional medical professionals were recruited.

Conclusion

Minor surgery remained safe in the COVID-19 Era, as long as all recommended precautions were applied. Our postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was extremely low thanks to a rigorous COVID-19 screening in asymptomatic patients in the preoperative work-up. Preoperative chest CT scan has not been shown to provide any additional benefit in routine preoperative screening of asymptomatic patients. These data may be useful to public health authorities worldwide, in order to improve surgical patient flow during a pandemic.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

26 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-08635

Is Surgery Safe During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Multi-Disciplinary Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Baboudjian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please specify "surgery" upfront in the Title and also in Methods.  Did it include open heart surgery, TAVR, TEVAR, aortic dissection, brain surgery, dental surgery, Whipple operation, Bentall operation, .VATS,...too vague and confusing!

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at and

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Thank you for providing the date(s) when patient medical information was initially recorded. Please also include the date(s) on which your research team accessed the databases/records to obtain the retrospective data used in your study.

4. Thank you for stating in the text of your manuscript "Verbal informed consent was obtained from all patients before preoperative routine SARSCoV-2 screening, and patients were aware that these data would be used anonymously for research purposes". please describe how verbal consent was documented and witnessed, and why written consent was not obtained. Please also also add all of this information to your ethics statement in the online submission form.

5. Please provide the full name of Institutional Review Board that approved your study.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

7. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

8.  Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

'The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to

publish, or preparation of the manuscript.'

At this time, please address the following queries:

Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The scope of "surgery" is ill-defined. Did it include open heart surgery, brain surgery, and some other major surgery? Or just urology surgery? Please specify upfront in the Title. in the Methods, the IR

B is only approved in urology, not other surgical specialty. Was it legal to include non-urology surgery cases? Please specify the scope of "surgery" in the Methods. Open heart surgery? TAVR? TEVAR? EVAR? Brain surgery, Whipple surgery, Bentall surgery, type-A aortic dissection, lung cancer surgery, eye surgery, dental surgery,...? "Surgery" needs to be defined and specified in this manuscript!

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

29 Mar 2021

Dear Robert Jeenchen Chen,

We are truly honored of the interest that the Editorial team of PLOS One has paid to our work.

We would like to thank the editor their thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of this report. Please find enclosed our revised manuscript and the rebuttal letter that specifically addresses every point they raised.

Sincerely yours,

Dr Michael Baboudjian

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR

Editor:

The scope of "surgery" is ill-defined. Did it include open heart surgery, brain surgery, and some other major surgery? Or just urology surgery? Please specify upfront in the Title.

We thank the editor for this justified comment. This part has been completed in the Methods Section as follow:

“The patients were operated on in one of the hospital's seven surgical departments: urology, digestive, plastic, gynecological, otolaryngology, gynecology or maxillofacial surgery. »

Thus, cardiovascular, thoracic, orthopedic and brain surgeries were not included in this study.

In the Methods, the IRB is only approved in urology, not other surgical specialty. Was it legal to include non-urology surgery cases?

The institutional review board approval from our hospital (Ap-Hm: Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Marseille) was provided for all surgical departments, not only for urology. In addition to the IRB, we have requested additional approval from the ethics committee of the French urology association. This is an ethics committee like any other, which can give its approval for a study that does not include only urology patients.

Please specify the scope of "surgery" in the Methods. Open heart surgery? TAVR? TEVAR? EVAR? Brain surgery, Whipple surgery, Bentall surgery, type-A aortic dissection, lung cancer surgery, eye surgery, dental surgery,...? "Surgery" needs to be defined and specified in this manuscript!

As previously described, this part has been completed in the Methods Section as follow:

“The patients were operated on in one of the hospital's seven surgical departments: urology, digestive, plastic, gynecological, otolaryngology, gynecology or maxillofacial surgery. »

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

1 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-08635R1

Is Surgery Safe During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Multi-Disciplinary Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Baboudjian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please do not only reply but also revise the title, abstract, and main text accordingly.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 16 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

1. Not only in "reply", please also define and specify the specialties/scopes of "surgery" in "Title", "Abstract", and "Methods" in the main text. The revision fails to show it. For example, please add "minor elective surgery" or modify otherwise because it does not include cardiac, neuro-, emergent, or other major surgical cases.

2. In the revised Methods, you specified "all seven surgical departments...." What are these seven surgical departments are unknown to readers.

3. Your results and conclusion clearly do not apply to cardiac, vascular, orthopedic, or other major surgical cases (I myself is a cardiac surgeon so I care if your research applies to my specialty or not.). Please specify minor surgery upfront in Title and Abstract.

4. Did your cases include emergent or trauma cases?

5. Please revise well and do specify/define/limit your "surgery" which is different from the perception of "surgery" of many readers.

6. After clarification of "surgery", further review can be proceeded.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

8 Apr 2021

Dear Robert Jeenchen Chen,

We are truly honored of the interest that the Editorial team of PLOS One has paid to our work.

Please find enclosed our revised manuscript and the rebuttal letter that specifically addresses every point they raised.

Sincerely yours,

Dr Michael Baboudjian

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR

1. Not only in "reply", please also define and specify the specialties/scopes of "surgery" in "Title", "Abstract", and "Methods" in the main text. The revision fails to show it. For example, please add "minor elective surgery" or modify otherwise because it does not include cardiac, neuro-, emergent, or other major surgical cases.

This comment is relevant. In fact, in our hospital there is no cardiac, vascular or neurological surgery. However, some of the patients included underwent major surgery such as cancer surgery (eg laryngectomy, cystectomy, gastrectomy) or kidney transplantation (n=15). In addition, as shown in Table 1, 28 included patients were acute surgical emergencies. Thus, all types of surgery were included: minor and major, elective and urgent surgery.

However, due to the lack of available resuscitation bed during the pandemic period, all surgeries were scheduled to not use postoperative resuscitation care and therefore, were mainly minor surgeries. As suggested by the editor, some changes have been added in the Title, the Abstract and The Manuscript:

Title: Is Minor Surgery Safe During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Multi-Disciplinary Study

Abstract: Our study included all adult patients who underwent minor surgery in one of the seven surgical departments of our hospital: urology, digestive, plastic, gynecological, otolaryngology, gynecology or maxillofacial surgery.

Methods: The patients were operated on in one of the hospital's seven surgical departments: urology, digestive, plastic, gynecological, otolaryngology (two departments), gynecology or maxillofacial surgery. In our hospital, there was no cardiac, vascular, neurological or orthopedic surgery.

Discussion (Limitations): Finally, the present study reports on a very heterogeneous surgical population and covers a wide range of planned elective surgeries and a variety of emergency surgical presentations. However, our study population consisted mainly of patients who underwent minor elective surgery. This observation should be related to a significant decrease in acute surgical emergencies as observed in previous studies found in the literature [26]. In addition, major surgeries such as cardiac, vascular or neurological surgeries requiring postoperative resuscitation care were not included in our series.

2. In the revised Methods, you specified "all seven surgical departments...." What are these seven surgical departments are unknown to readers.

This comment is justified. As suggested by the reviewer, this data has been added in the Methods section:

“All of the seven surgical departments in our hospital were involved in our study: urology, digestive, plastic, otolaryngology, gynecology or maxillofacial surgery.”

3. Your results and conclusion clearly do not apply to cardiac, vascular, orthopedic, or other major surgical cases (I myself is a cardiac surgeon so I care if your research applies to my specialty or not.). Please specify minor surgery upfront in Title and Abstract.

This is a justified comment. As suggested, we specified in the title and the abstract that the surgeries were mainly minor.

4. Did your cases include emergent or trauma cases?

Yes, some cases were acute surgical emergencies (n=28, 5.1% of all cases, Table 1). These patients therefore represent a very small part of our included population. This limitation is notified in the Discussion section:

“However, our study population consisted mainly of patients who underwent minor elective surgery. This observation should be related to a significant decrease in acute surgical emergencies as observed in previous studies found in the literature [26]. »

5. Please revise well and do specify/define/limit your "surgery" which is different from the perception of "surgery" of many readers.

As suggested by the reviewer, we have specified the type of surgery included throughout the manuscript: mainly minor and elective. In addition, we specified in the Methods part and in the Limits part that neither cardiac, vascular or neurological surgery was included in our study.

6. After clarification of "surgery", further review can be proceeded.

Dear editor, thank you for your comments which greatly improve the relevance and applicability of this manuscript.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

21 Apr 2021

Is Minor Surgery Safe During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Multi-Disciplinary Study

PONE-D-21-08635R2

Dear Dr. Baboudjian,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study, and I approve of its publication.This study is a pioneer and I believe it will help in the future with COVID-19.

Reviewer #3: The authors' revised manuscript had specifically addressed every point raised by the reviewers with appropriate response.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Chao-Yang Chen

29 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-08635R2

Is Minor Surgery Safe During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Multi-Disciplinary Study

Dear Dr. Baboudjian:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Robert Jeenchen Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE