Cataract and its risk factor among adults residing in South Bihar, India

Background: Cataract is considered as one of the most common causes of visual impairment and the leading cause of blindness in the world. Age related cataract occurs in people above 50 years of age and the its pathogenesis is multifactorial. Therefore, the present study was aimed to assess the prevalence and risk factors for cataract.Methods: Community based cross sectional study was conducted among adults residing at urban areas of South Bihar. The data was collected by interview method, using pre-tested semi-structured questionnaire which contains socio-demographic data, dietary habits, history of diabetes or hypertension, family history of cataract and long-term sun exposure.Results: Among 240 participants, 94 (39.2%) were male and 146 (60.8%) were female. Maximum participants were aged more than 70 years. The prevalence of cataract was 52.1%.Conclusions: The prevalence of cataract was quite high and was significantly associated with age, long term sun exposure and family history of cataract

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Evaluating current acute aortic syndrome pathways: Collaborative Acute Aortic Syndrome Project (CAASP)

Acknowledgements: J.Z. and A.A.S. share joint authorship. S.N. and G.V share joint senior authorship. We would like to thank The Aortic Disease Charitable Trust for their support of this work.Abstract Background Diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome is challenging and associated with high perihospital mortality rates. The study aim was to evaluate current pathways and understand the chronology of acute aortic syndrome patient care. Method Consecutive patients with acute aortic syndrome imaging diagnosis between 1 January 2018 and 1 June 2021 were identified using a predetermined search strategy and followed up for 6 months through retrospective case note review. The UK National Interventional Radiology Trainee Research and Vascular and Endovascular Research Network co-ordinated the study. Results From 15 UK sites, 620 patients were enrolled. The median age was 67 (range 25–98) years, 62.0% were male and 92.9% Caucasian. Type-A dissection (41.8%) was most common, followed by type-B (34.5%); 41.2% had complicated acute aortic syndrome. Mode of presentation included emergency ambulance (80.2%), self-presentation (16.2%), and primary care referral (3.6%). Time (median (i.q.r.)) to hospital presentation was 3.1 (1.8–8.6) h and decreased by sudden onset chest pain but increased with migratory pain or hypertension. Time from hospital presentation to imaging diagnosis was 3.2 (1.3–6.5) h and increased by family history of aortic disease and decreased by concurrent ischaemic limb. Time from diagnosis to treatment was 2 (1.0–4.3) h with interhospital transfer causing delay. Management included conservative (60.2%), open surgery (32.2%), endovascular (4.8%), hybrid (1.4%) and palliative (1.4%). Factors associated with a higher mortality rate at 30 days and 6 months were acute aortic syndrome type, complicated disease, no critical care admission and age more than 70 years (P &amp;lt; 0.05). Conclusions This study presents a longitudinal data set linking time-based delays to diagnosis and treatment with clinical outcomes. It can be used to prioritize research strategies to streamline patient care. </jats:sec

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background: Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods: This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was coprioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low-middle-income countries. Results: In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of 'single-use' consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low-middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion: This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high- and low-middle-income countries