RESULTS: A significant nonparametric linkage (NPL) score was detected in family 100. Other suggestive NPL and logarithm of the odds (LOD) scores were attained from families 50, 58, 99 and 100 under autosomal recessive mode. Heterogeneity LOD (HLOD) score ≥ 1 was determined for all families, confirming genetic heterogeneity of the population and indicating that a proportion of families might be linked to each other. Several candidate genes in linkage intervals were determined; LPHN2 at 1p31, SATB2 at 2q33.1-q35, PVRL3 at 3q13.3, COL21A1 at 6p12.1, FOXP2 at 7q22.3-q33, FOXG1 and HECTD1 at 14q12 and TOX3 at 16q12.1.
CONCLUSIONS: We have identified several novel and known candidate genes for nonsyndromic cleft lip and/or palate through genome-wide linkage analysis. Further analysis of the involvement of these genes in the condition will shed light on the disease mechanism. Comprehensive genetic testing of the candidate genes is warranted.
METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia to assess patients with burns between 10 to 40% total body surface area (TBSA) and with at least one year after injury. The Burn Specific Health Score-brief (BSHS-B) was utilized to compare the functional outcome whilst the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was used for comparison on the scar outcome of the two skin grafting techniques.
RESULTS: Forty three patients (Meek,15; SSG,28) were included. The mean current age (years old) of Meek and SSG was 24.7 (range, 7-75) and 25.9 (range, 7-65) respectively. The mean TBSA (%) of the Meek group was 26.7 (range, 13-40) while that of the SSG group was 16.1 (range, 10-32). A simplified domain structure was used for the BSHS-B questionnaire. The work and sexuality subscale were analyzed separately due to missing data. There mean scores of affect and relations was higher in Meek compared to SSG (Meek, 3.86; SSG, 3.75; p > 0.05). Function domain was also better in Meek compared to SSG (Meek, 3.88; SSG, 3.73; p > 0.05). The Meek group displayed superior scar outcome compared to SSG as evidenced by the statistically significant difference in score for the pigmentation, pliability, height and total VSS score.
CONCLUSION: The Meek group showed more favorable BSHS-B scores compared to the SSG group. The scar outcome of the Meek technique is significantly superior to SSG. Therefore, the Meek technique is superior in the management of burns because the long term scar and functional outcome of this technique is better compared to conventional SSG.
METHODS: A three-dimensional short animation was developed for the Burn and Blast Injury Awareness campaign. It was launched during the fasting month and Eid 2020 when firecracker-related injuries are highly incident in Malaysia. The video was launched primarily on Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) and Wau Animation Sdn Bhd social media platforms. Each party shared the video on the top 3 social media platforms, which are Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. The numbers of viewers, reaches, and shares, and demographic data were captured at 1 month after the release.
RESULTS: We recorded 29,585 views, 60,920 reach, and 874 shares from the USM and Wau Animation platforms alone. The USM Facebook platform showed predominant female viewership (60%), whereas the Wau Facebook platform showed predominant male viewership (66%). In both platforms, the viewers were aged 18-34 years.
CONCLUSION: Health awareness campaigns on digital platforms are powerful because the message spreads faster, and it is also safe during the pandemic.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was designed to assess surgeons' and patients' perceptions toward breast reconstruction. Questionnaires were distributed to general and breast surgeons in East Coast Malaysian hospitals and Hospital Kuala Lumpur and to postmastectomy patients with and without breast reconstruction at the Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia and Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II. The response rates were 82.5% for the surgeons (n = 33), 95.4% for the patients with reconstruction (n = 63), and 95.5% for the patients without reconstruction (n = 278).
RESULTS: The median surgeon age and experience was 42 and 6 years, respectively. Each surgeon saw an average of 20 new breast cancer cases annually. Most surgeons (86.7%) discussed reconstruction options with their patients but had only referred an average of 4 patients for reconstruction during a 3-year period. Surgeons' concerns regarding the qualitative outcome increased the likelihood of a breast reconstruction discussion (β = 4.833; P = .044). The women who underwent breast reconstruction were younger (mean age, 42 vs. 50 years), were more often working (69.4% vs. 42.2%), and more often had previous awareness of the option (90.3% vs. 44.3%). The most common reasons for undergoing breast reconstruction were "to feel more balanced" (92.1%) and "surgeon's strong recommendation" (92.1%). Previous knowledge of breast reconstruction increased the likelihood of reconstruction (odds ratio, 5.805; P = .026). Although 70% of surgeons thought that patients would not be interested in reconstruction, only 37.9% of patients with previous awareness reported having no interest.
CONCLUSION: The low reconstruction rate (20.6%) can be attributed to the low referral rate. Patients' likelihood to undergo reconstruction with their surgeon's recommendation and with previous awareness were reflective of the surgeons' strong influence on their patients. Thus, clarification of surgeons' hypothetical criticisms could conceivably increase the reconstructive surgery rate.
METHODS: This was a comparative case-control study done on patients in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (Hospital USM), requiring split-thickness skin grafting, whereby, the skin graft donor site was divided to almost equal halves, and applied with both gamat-based gel on one side, with Duoderm® hydrogel on the other side. The epithelialization of the wounds was observed and compared on days 10, 14 and 21. Pain score, and pruritus score were also observed. Repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and Paired t-test was used to test statistical significance accordingly.
RESULTS: No significant differences were seen in rates of epithelialization of wounds on days 10, 14 and 21 (p > 0.01). No significant difference was also seen in the pain score and pruritus score (p > 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: A gamat-based gel is comparable to conventional hydrogels in treatment of split-skin graft donor site. No adverse effects were observed in either group.