Acute Appendicitis among Saudi and Non-Saudi Patients: A Cross-Sectional Based Study

Objective: We conduct this study to discuss the differences between Saudi and non- Saudi patients with acute appendicitis.Background: Acute appendicitis is one of emergency surgeries in developing and developed countries. Its symptoms are vomiting, lower abdominal pain and decreased appetite. Appendicitis needs urgent surgical prouder to avoid its perforation and associated complications which may lead to death. Method: We conduct cross-sectional based study in one of khamis Mushayt, Saudi Araba. 136 patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis were included and their medical records were reviewed after getting their informed consent.Results: We included 136 patients, 90 were non-Saudi and 46 were Saudi. There were no statistically differences in their diagnosis but the distribution of the diagnosis was different.Conclusion: Acute appendicitis was more prevalent among non-Saudi patients, the diagnosis between both was with no significant differences. Keywords: acute appendicitis, Saudi, non-Saudi, diagnosis, cross-sectional, Saudi Arabia and khamis Mushayt

Is Thulium laser enucleation of prostate an alternative to Holmium and TURP surgeries? - A systematic review

To assess efficacy and safety of Thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia. It is a systemic review based on a comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Google scholar databases from inception to 31 March 2020. All studies in English evaluating ThuLEP as well as those comparing it with Transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and Holmium Laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) were enrolled. The primary outcome was to evaluate operative, postoperative, and functional outcomes (IPSS, QoL, Qmax, PVR) in patients undergoing ThuLEP. Secondary outcome was to compare operative, postoperative, and functional outcomes with TURP and HoLEP in comparative studies. Fourteen studies with a total of 2,562 patients were included in this review. 2,034 underwent ThuLEP, 349 underwent TURP, and remaining 139 had HoLEP. We found that ThuLEP is safe as well as efficacious in all age groups as well as across all prostate sizes and with all four functional outcomes (IPSS, QoL, Qmax, PVR) revealing marked improvement at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Compared to TURP and HoLEP, Thulep is non-inferior in terms of operative and functional outcomes and, in fact, is associated with lesser catheterization duration as well as shorter hospital stay. Further, Thulium fiber laser (TFL) has advantages of being light weight, having high frequency, less fiber degradation, and less energy consumption, making it cost effective for operational and maintenance purpose. ThuLEP is a safe, efficacious, and cost-effective procedure for BPE

Information Needs of Physicians and Surgeons of Jammu & Kashmir

Purpose: The paper attempts to explore the information needs of physicians and surgeons of Jammu & KashmirDesign/Methodology/Approach: The survey is conducted among physicians and surgeons working at primary, secondary and tertiary health care institutions by administrating a questionnaire employing stratified random sampling.Findings: The information needs of the physicians and surgeons vary with practice location, affiliation and specialization. Most of the physicians and surgeons need patient data/patient care information, latest medical knowledge, information about new drugs and medical products/equipments.Originality/Value: The identification of information needs of physicians and surgeons is a maiden attempt for the state of J & K. This study may encourage and foster further research for effectiveness and better performance of medical libraries and information managers in the State.Keywords: Medical Practitioners, Physicians, Surgeons, Information Needs, Jammu & Kashmir.Paper Type: Researc

Factors causing variation in WHO surgical safety checklist effectiveness - A rapid scoping review

Introduction: This review was conducted to determine what factors might be responsible for prejudicing the outcomes after the implementation of a World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist (WHO SSC), grouping them appropriately and proposing strategies that enable the SSC a more helpful and productive tool in the operating room. Methods: It was a rapid scoping review conducted as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses extension guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-Scr). Comprehensive search on MEDLINE and Embase was carried out, to include all relevant studies published during last 5 years. Twenty-seven studies were included in analysis. The barriers to SSC implementation were classified into 5 main groups, with further subdivisions in each. Results: The results of review revealed that there are 5 major barriers to SSC at the following levels: organizational, checklist, individual, technical, and implementation. Each of these major barriers, on further evaluation, was found to have more than one contributing factors. All these factors were analyzed individually. Conclusions: This rapid scoping review has consolidated data, which may pave the way for experts to further examine steps that might be taken locally or globally in order that the WHO SSC to successfully achieve all its desired goals

Comparison of Outcomes of Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Versus Low-Risk Localised Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Currently, there is no clear consensus regarding the role of active surveillance (AS) in the management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) patients. We aim to analyse data from the available literature on the outcomes of AS in the management of IRPC patients and compare them with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) patients. A comprehensive literature search was performed, and relevant data were extracted. Our primary outcome was treatment-free survival, and secondary outcomes were metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. The DerSimonian–Laird random-effects method was used for the meta-analysis. Out of 712 studies identified following an initial search, 25 studies were included in the systematic review. We found that both IRPC and LRPC patients had nearly similar 5, 10, and 15 year treatment-free survival rate, 5 and 10 year metastasis-free survival rate, and 5 year overall survival rate. However, cancer-specific survival rates at 5, 10, and 15 years were significantly lower in IRPC compared to LRPC group. Furthermore, IRPC patients had significantly inferior long-term overall survival rate (10 and 15 year) and metastasis-free survival rate (15 year) compared to LRPC patients. Both the clinicians and the patients can consider this information during the informed decision-making process before choosing AS