Alexandru Marian Vieru

Background/Objectives: Comparisons of abdominal Surgical-Site Infection (SSI) rates during COVID-19 often treat recorded incidence as a direct measure of biological risk, although the pandemic altered operative volume and case mix, prevention practices, and post-discharge detection. This review examines when reported SSI changes are interpretable. Methods: We conducted a critical narrative review, informed by SANRA and critical interpretive synthesis, of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Europe PMC (January 2018–25 June 2026). Comparative SSI studies formed the core evidence set, supported by contextual studies on emergency presentation, biological risk, prevention, and surveillance. Results: Studies reported lower, unchanged, non-monotonic, and higher SSI rates. These differences became more coherent when the recorded rate was separated into operative composition, true infection probability, and detection probability. No core study measured all domains required to isolate a biological pandemic effect. Evidence from acute pancreatitis and abdominal trauma showed that disease severity, care access, inflammatory status, and prognostic relationships varied with health-system context. Conclusions: We propose the Surgical-Site Infection Signal-Validity Framework (SSI-SVF). It classifies findings as probable true improvement, apparent improvement, masked deterioration, mixed deterioration, or indeterminate and requires joint assessment of operative composition, true infection risk, and detection probability before interpreting a calendar-period change as altered surgical safety.

Background/Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly disrupted gastric cancer care, reducing access to screening, delaying diagnosis, and altering therapeutic pathways worldwide. Beyond clinical challenges, it exposed structural weaknesses in healthcare systems but also accelerated innovation. Methods: We conducted a narrative review supported by a structured literature search (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science; 1 January 2014–30 November 2025), with a narrative synthesis of observational studies, registry analyses, and meta-analyses addressing COVID-19–related changes in gastric cancer epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, vaccination, and telemedicine. A PRISMA-style flow diagram was used to illustrate study selection. Results: Elective endoscopy volumes fell by up to 80%, leading to diagnostic backlogs and increased proportions of advanced-stage gastric cancer. Surgical postponements, modified chemotherapy and radiotherapy schedules, and reduced molecular/genetic testing further compromised outcomes. Conversely, vaccination, telemedicine, capsule endoscopy, and adaptive triage frameworks enabled partial recovery of services. Geographical variations were observed in the recovery of gastric cancer care services, with regions that had established screening infrastructure generally resuming activity more rapidly, whereas others experienced ongoing delays and diagnostic backlogs. Conclusions: This review integrates epidemiological, diagnostic, and therapeutic evidence to demonstrate how COVID-19 redefined gastric cancer care. By highlighting regional disparities and outlining a conceptual model for oncologic resilience, it provides an innovative framework for future crisis preparedness. The lessons of the pandemic—digital health integration, flexible treatment protocols, and international collaboration—represent a foundation for more robust, equitable gastric cancer management in the post-pandemic era.

Background/Objective: Gastrointestinal tract cancers may have been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The limitations of digestive endoscopy, the fear effect, and restrictions on hospital admissions during the pandemic may have delayed the presentation of patients to hospitals and surgical procedures and may have impacted overall survival. Methods: We conducted an observational, cross-sectional study of esophageal, gastric, small bowel, and colorectal cancer patients admitted to our hospital between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2021. We analyzed the hospitalization rates, pathological type, the onset by complications, staging, and surgery during the pandemic compared to a pre-pandemic period (January 2018–December 2019). Results: During 2018–2021, 1613 patients with malignant gut tumors were admitted to our hospital (112 esophageal and eso-cardial tumors, 419 gastric tumors, 34 small bowel tumors, and 1058 colorectal tumors). Admission was reduced by 30.3% for esophageal and eso-cardial malignant tumors, 27.6% for gastric tumors, and 17.3% for malignant colorectal tumors. For esophageal and eso-cardial tumors, a higher frequency of stenosing tumors and palliative gastrostomies was noted. More stage III gastric cancers and a lower rate of vascular invasion were recorded during the pandemic. No differences regarding small bowel tumors were noted. In colorectal tumors, slightly more stage II cancers and more stenosing tumors were recorded, but occlusive, bleeding, and perforated tumors were similar; also, surgical rates were similar, with a two-fold higher perioperative mortality. The overall survival of gastric and colorectal carcinoma was higher during the pandemic (but with no statistical significance), although a clear explanation has not emerged. Conclusions: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gut cancer included a significantly lower rate of newly diagnosed admissions, more stage II colorectal and stage III gastric carcinomas, a two-fold higher perioperative mortality for colorectal carcinoma, and a trend for a surprisingly higher overall survival for gastric and colorectal tumors (but without statistical significance). Future research is necessary for assessing long-term impact.