METHODS: Orthopaedic surgeons nationwide were invited through email and text messages to answer an online self-administered questionnaire collecting demographic information, COVID-19 exposure experience, perception of risk, and impact on orthopaedic practice.
RESULTS: Of the respondents, 4.7% and 14.0% were involved in frontline treatment for COVID-19 patients with non-orthopaedic and orthopaedic problem, respectively. Respondents working in Ministry of Health had highest percentage of involvement as frontliner, 7.8% (8/103) and 20.4% (21/103) for non-orthopaedic and orthopaedic related COVID-19 treatment, respectively (not significant). Their main concern was an infection of family members (125/235, 53.2%). Majority of respondents were still working (223/235, 94.9%), running outpatient clinics (168/223, 75.3%), and continued with their semi-emergency (190/223, 85.2%) and emergency surgeries (213/223, 95.5%). Of the surgeons, 11.2% (25/223) did not screen their patients for COVID-19 prior to elective surgeries, 30.9% (69/223) did not have any training on proper handling of personal protective equipment (PPE), 84.8% (189/223) make decision to manage more conservatively due to COVID-19 and 61.9% (138/223) had their income affected. Of the surgeons, 19.3% (43/223) started using telehealth facilities.
CONCLUSION: Direct exposure to treatment of COVID-19 patients among the respondent is low and the main concern was infecting their family member. There are still several surgeons who did not conduct preoperative COVID-19 screening and practice without proper PPE training.
METHODS: This is a prospective block randomized, non-blinded study conducted at a single tertiary hospital. Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy between August 2017 and October 2018 were recruited and randomized into Handout Assisted Consent (HC) and Verbal Consent (VC) group. The HC group was given an adjunct handout on laparoscopic cholecystectomy during consent process in addition to the standard verbal consent. A validated open-ended verbal understanding and recall questionnaire was administered to all patients in both groups at Day 1, 30 and 90 after surgery. Patient satisfaction of the consent process was evaluated with Likert scale.
RESULTS: A total of 79 patients were enrolled, 41 patients and 38 patients in VC and HC groups respectively. Level of understanding among patients were equal and consistent across time in both groups (P > 0.05). There was significant decline (P 0.05).
CONCLUSION: There is good consistent understanding of the surgery in both groups. However, recall of specific surgical consent items decreased significantly over time in both groups. Handouts may have increased satisfaction among patients but did not improve recall in this preliminary study.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: MREC No.:201783-5468.
METHODS: We conducted an online survey among neurosurgery residents in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand from May 22 to 31, 2020 using Google Forms. The 33-item questionnaire collected data on elective and emergency neurosurgical operations, ongoing learning activities, and health worker safety.
RESULTS: A total of 298 of 470 neurosurgery residents completed the survey, equivalent to a 63% response rate. The decrease in elective neurosurgical operations in Indonesia and in the Philippines (median, 100% for both) was significantly greater compared with other countries (P < 0.001). For emergency operations, trainees in Indonesia and Malaysia had a significantly greater reduction in their caseload (median, 80% and 70%, respectively) compared with trainees in Singapore and Thailand (median, 20% and 50%, respectively; P < 0.001). Neurosurgery residents were most concerned about the decrease in their hands-on surgical experience, uncertainty in their career advancement, and occupational safety in the workplace. Most of the residents (n = 221, 74%) believed that the COVID-19 crisis will have a negative impact on their neurosurgical training overall.
CONCLUSIONS: An effective national strategy to control COVID-19 is crucial to sustain neurosurgical training and to provide essential neurosurgical services. Training programs in Southeast Asia should consider developing online learning modules and setting up simulation laboratories to allow trainees to systematically acquire knowledge and develop practical skills during these challenging times.
METHODS: An analysis of observational data was conducted using live, singleton, term births recorded in the Malaysian National Obstetrics Registry between 2010 and 2012. A total of 272,472 live, singleton, term births without congential anomalies were recorded, of which 1,580 (0.59%) had 1 min Apgar scores <4. Descriptive methods and bi- and multi-variable logistic regression were used to identify risk factors associated with recovery (5 min Apgar score ≥7) from 1 min Apgar scores <4.
RESULTS: Less than 1% of births have a 1 min Apgar scores <4. Only 29.4% of neonates with 1 min Apgar scores <4 recover to a 5 min Apgar score ≥7. Among uncomplicated vaginal deliveries, after controlling for other factors, deliveries by a doctor of neonates with a 1 min Apgar score <4 had odds of recovery 2.4 times greater than deliveries of neonates with a 1 min Apgar score <4 by a nurse-midwife. Among deliveries of neonates with a 1 min Apgar score <4 by doctors, after controlling for other factors, planned and unplanned CS was associated with better odds of recovery than uncomplicated vaginal deliveries. Recovery was also associated with maternal obesity, and there was some ethnic variation - in the adjusted analysis indigenous (Orang Asal) Malaysians had lower odds of recovery.
CONCLUSIONS: A 1 min Apgar score <4 is relatively rare, and less than a third recover by five minutes. In those newborns the qualification of the person performing the delivery and the type of delivery are independent predictors of recovery as is maternal BMI and ethnicity. These are associations only, not necessarily causes, and they point to potential areas of research into health systems factors in the labour room, as well as possible biological and cultural factors.