MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was retrieved from the webbased Malaysian Cataract Surgery Registry (CSR). Perioperative data for cataract surgery performed from 2007- 2018 were analysed. Inclusion criteria were age ≥40 years, phacoemulsification and IOL and senile cataract. Combined surgeries, surgeries performed by trainees and ocular comorbidities were excluded. Post-operative Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) were compared. Factors affecting poor visual outcomes among those with DM were analysed using multivariate logistic regression to produce adjusted odds ratio (OR) for variables of interest.
RESULTS: Total number of cases between 2007-2018 was 442,858, of whom 179,210 qualified for our analysis. DM group consisted of 72,087 cases (40.2%). There were 94.5% cases in DM group and 95.0Ź from non-DM group who achieved BCVA ≥6/12 (p<0.001). Among patients with DM, advanced age (70-79 years old, OR: 2.54, 95% Confidence Interva, 95%CI: 1.91, 3.40; 80-89 years old, OR: 5.50, 95%CI: 4.02, 7.51), ≥90 years, OR: 9.77, 95%CI: 4.18, 22.81), poor preoperative presenting visual acuity [<6/18-6/60] (OR: 2.40, 95%CI: 1.84, 3.14) and <6/60-3/60 (OR: 3.00, 95%CI: 2.24, 4.02), <3/60 (OR 3.63, 95%CI: 2.77, 4.74)], presence of intraoperative complication (OR 2.24, 95%CI: 1.86, 2.71) and presence of postoperative complication (OR 5.21, 95%CI: 2.97, 9.16) were significant factors for poor visual outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Visual outcomes following phacoemulsification with IOL implantation surgery among cases with DM were poorer compared to cases without DM. Risk factors for poor visual outcomes among cases with DM were identified.
METHODS: A quasi experimental interventional study involving 166 non-smokers adolescents, aged 13 to 14 years old were carried out in two schools located in two different suburbs. Both schools had equal number of participants. One school was given the smoking prevention module for intervention while the control school only received the module after the study had been completed. The knowledge on smoking and its harmful effects and smoking refusal skill score were assessed using a set of validated Malay questionnaires at baseline, two weeks and eight weeks after the intervention. Repeated measure ANCOVA was used to analyse the mean score difference of both groups at baseline and after intervention.
RESULT: Baseline analysis shows no significant difference in knowledge score between the study groups (p = 0.713) while post intervention, it shows significant inclination of knowledge score in intervention group and the difference was significant after controlling the gender [F(df) = 15.96(1.5), p <0.001]. The mean baseline for refusal skills score in the control and intervention groups were 30.89(6.164) and 28.02(6.241) respectively (p= 0.003). Post intervention, there is a significant difference in the crude mean and the estimated marginal means for smoking refusal skills score between the two groups after controlling for sex [F(df) = 5.66(1.8), p = 0.005].
CONCLUSION: This smoking prevention module increased the level of knowledge on smoking and its harmful effects and smoking refusal skill among the secondary school students. Thus, it is advocated to be used as one of the standard modules to improve the current method of teaching in delivering knowledge related to harmful effects of smoking and smoking refusal skill to the adolescents in Malaysia.
.