The major concern that has confronted surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic is the risk of infection during surgery. So far, no studies have found SARS-CoV-2 in surgical smoke, and if it was found, whether it was infectious or not is unknown. To date, no evidence shows that respiratory viruses can be transmitted through a surgical plume or an aerosolized gas. There are various advantages of laparoscopy over laparotomy that must be kept in mind in the COVID-19 era, such as early recovery and shorter hospital stay, which can greatly help to conserve valuable hospital resources, and reduced risk of spillage of blood and body fluids, which can help to reduce transmission risk; most importantly, the distance between surgeons and between surgeons and patient is greater. Certain precautionary measures can be taken to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission during laparoscopy. Whenever possible, it should be the surgical option of choice.

The major concern that has confronted surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic is the risk of infection during surgery. So far, no studies have found SARS-CoV-2 in surgical smoke, and if it was found, whether it was infectious or not is unknown. To date, no evidence shows that respiratory viruses can be transmitted through a surgical plume or an aerosolized gas. There are various advantages of laparoscopy over laparotomy that must be kept in mind in the COVID-19 era, such as early recovery and shorter hospital stay, which can greatly help to conserve valuable hospital resources, and reduced risk of spillage of blood and body fluids, which can help to reduce transmission risk; most importantly, the distance between surgeons and between surgeons and patient is greater. Certain precautionary measures can be taken to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission during laparoscopy. Whenever possible, it should be the surgical option of choice.

Objective: The novel coronavirus pandemic led to the suspension of elective surgeries and the diversion of resources and manpower towards pandemic control. However, gynecological emergencies and malignancies must be addressed despite the restricted resources and the need for protective measures against COVID-19. This study aimed to determine the types of gynecological surgeries performed, difficulties encountered, and their outcomes in the setting of the pandemic. Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study over 6 months at a single tertiary center, including 60 women with gynecological complaints, categorized as emergencies and semi-emergencies, who underwent further surgery. Their surgical outcomes were measured through various parameters. Results: We found that 68.3% were emergency cases, while the rest were classified as semi-emergencies. Fibroid and adenomyosis with failed medical management (48.3%), followed by cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (10%), and malignancies (10%) accounted for the semi-emergency cases, while ruptured ectopic pregnancies (13.3%) and torsion and ovarian cysts (18.4%) comprised the emergency cases. The decision to incision time between emergency and semi-emergency cases varied widely due to the safety prerequisites during the pandemic, ranging from 1 hour in emergency cases to 48 hours in semi-emergency cases. In addition, we studied the ease of preoperative preparation, patient satisfaction, and the average number of personnel available to run the operation theaters at these times. No serious perioperative adverse events were observed in the present study. Conclusion In conclusion, gynecological surgeries could continue to be safely performed with all precautions in place against COVID-19 infection and related morbidities.

Objective: The novel coronavirus pandemic led to the suspension of elective surgeries and the diversion of resources and manpower towards pandemic control. However, gynecological emergencies and malignancies must be addressed despite the restricted resources and the need for protective measures against COVID-19. This study aimed to determine the types of gynecological surgeries performed, difficulties encountered, and their outcomes in the setting of the pandemic. Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study over 6 months at a single tertiary center, including 60 women with gynecological complaints, categorized as emergencies and semi-emergencies, who underwent further surgery. Their surgical outcomes were measured through various parameters. Results: We found that 68.3% were emergency cases, while the rest were classified as semi-emergencies. Fibroid and adenomyosis with failed medical management (48.3%), followed by cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (10%), and malignancies (10%) accounted for the semi-emergency cases, while ruptured ectopic pregnancies (13.3%) and torsion and ovarian cysts (18.4%) comprised the emergency cases. The decision to incision time between emergency and semi-emergency cases varied widely due to the safety prerequisites during the pandemic, ranging from 1 hour in emergency cases to 48 hours in semi-emergency cases. In addition, we studied the ease of preoperative preparation, patient satisfaction, and the average number of personnel available to run the operation theaters at these times. No serious perioperative adverse events were observed in the present study. Conclusion In conclusion, gynecological surgeries could continue to be safely performed with all precautions in place against COVID-19 infection and related morbidities.

Objective: To study the efficacy and safety of 0.5% bupivacaine in paracervical block to reduce immediate postoperative pain after total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Methods: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted at a tertiary referral center involving thirty women each in the treatment and placebo groups. Paracervical block with 10 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine (treatment group) or 0.9% saline (placebo group) was administered following general anesthesia and prior to proceeding with total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at 30 and 60 minutes post extubation and mean VAS score (average VAS score at 30 and 60 minutes) were compared. Adequate pain control was defined as mean VAS score ≤5. Additional postoperative opioid requirement, hospital stay, and readmissions were also compared. Results: Baseline variables such as age, previous history of cesarean section, operating time, and weight of the specimen were comparable in both groups. VAS scores at 30 (5.0±2.8 vs. 7.0±1.4) and 60 minutes (5.2±2.8 vs. 7.0±0.8) and the mean VAS score (5.1±2.7 vs. 6.8±0.9) were significantly lower in the treatment group. Adequate pain control (mean VAS score ≤5) was 57% higher and additional opioid consumption was 47% lower in the treatment group. No significant difference was found in the duration of hospital stay and readmission rate. Conclusion Paracervical block with bupivacaine was useful in reducing immediate postoperative pain with a 25% reduction in mean VAS score and a 47% reduction in opioid consumption in the first hour after total laparoscopic hysterectomy.