METHODS: Consensus-driven approach between authors from the six selected countries was applied. Country specific policy documents, official government media statements, mainstream news portals, global statistics databases and latest published literature available between January-October 2020 were utilised for information retrieval. Situational and epidemiological trend analyses were conducted. Country-specific interventions and challenges were described. Based on evidence appraised, a descriptive framework was considered through a consensus. The authors subsequently outlined the lessons learned, challenges ahead and interventions that needs to be in place to control the pandemic.
RESULTS: The total number of people infected with COVID-19 between 1 January and 16 November 2020 had reached 48,520 in Malaysia, 58,124 in Singapore, 3,875 in Thailand, 470,648 in Indonesia, 409,574 in Philippines and 70,161 in Myanmar. The total number of people infected with COVID- 19 in the six countries from January to 31 October 2020 were 936,866 cases and the mortality rate was 2.42%. Indonesia had 410,088 cases with a mortality rate of 3.38%, Philippines had 380,729 cases with a mortality rate of 1.90%, Myanmar had 52,706 cases with a mortality rate of 2.34%, Thailand had 3,780 cases with a mortality rate of 1.56%, Malaysia had 31,548 cases with a mortality rate of 0.79%, and Singapore had 58,015 cases with a mortality rate of 0.05% over the 10- month period. Each country response varied depending on its real-time situations based on the number of active cases and economic situation of the country.
CONCLUSION: The number of COVID-19 cases in these countries waxed and waned over the 10-month period, the number of cases may be coming down in one country, and vice versa in another. Each country, if acting alone, will not be able to control this pandemic. Sharing of information and resources across nations is the key to successful control of the pandemic. There is a need to reflect on how the pandemic affects individuals, families and the community as a whole. There are many people who cannot afford to be isolated from their families and daily wage workers who cannot afford to miss work. Are we as a medical community, only empathising with our patients or are we doing our utmost to uphold them during this time of crisis? Are there any other avenues which can curb the epidemic while reducing its impact on the health and socio-economic condition of the individual, community and the nation?
METHODS: The authors obtained data on volumes and reimbursement rates for the most common 25 tests at the five hospitals with which they are affiliated and organized them to be as comparable as possible. Simple descriptive statistics were used to make cross-country comparisons.
RESULTS: There are strong similarities across all five hospitals in the top five tests by both volume and revenue. However, the top five by volume differ from the top five by revenue. Reimbursement rates also follow common patterns, being lowest for the most common biochemical test; intermediate for the most common hematology and microbiology tests, respectively; and highest for the most common pathology test.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the most common tests also appear in the new Essential Diagnostics List. This may inform plans for universal health coverage.
METHODS: 104 AIS patients with 1524 pedicle screws were evaluated using CT scan. 302 screws were inserted in dysplastic pedicles using fluoroscopic guidance technique. 155 screws were inserted using a cannulated system (Group 1), whereas 147 screws were inserted using standard screws (Group 2). The pedicle perforations were assessed using a classification by Rao et al.; G0: no violation; G1: <2 mm perforation; G2: 2-4 mm perforation; and G3: >4 mm perforation). For anterior perforations, the pedicle perforations were assessed using a modified grading system (Grade 0: no violation, Grade 1: less than 4 mm perforation; Grade 2: 4 mm to 6 mm perforation; and Grade 3: more than 6 mm perforation).
RESULTS: The perforation rate in Group 1 was 4.5% and in Group 2 was 15.6% (p = 0.001). Most of the perforations were anterior perforations (53.3%). The anterior perforation rate in Group 1 was 1.9% compared to 8.8% in Group 2 (p = 0.009). Group 1 has a medial perforation rate of 1.3% compared to Group 2, 6.1% (p = 0.031). The rate of critical pedicle perforation in Group 1 was 2.6% and in Group 2 was 6.8% (p = 0.102). In Group 1, there were no critical medial perforation but there was one G2 lateral perforation, one G2 superior perforation and two G3 anterior perforations. In Group 2, there were three G2 medial perforations, one G2 lateral perforation, one G2 anterior perforation and five G3 anterior perforations.
CONCLUSION: Usage of cannulated screw system significantly increases the accuracy of pedicle screw insertion in dysplastic pedicles in AIS.