RESUMO
Objectives@#Many conditions of the oral and maxillofacial region require hospitalization and in-patient care. The average length of stay (LOS) of these patients varies and is usually affected by multiple confounding variables. However, even with an increasing number of hospital admissions, published evidence on the factors that affect the LOS of oral and maxillofacial patients is lacking. Therefore, this study assessed the LOS of in-patients at the oral and maxillofacial surgery department of a government-funded, multi-specialty hospital in Malaysia, based on their reasons for admission and other factors. @*Materials and Methods@#Our samples were collected retrospectively over a 5-year period and included patients with maxillofacial infections, posttrauma stabilization, facial bone fracture surgery, benign and malignant lesion surgery, dentoalveolar surgery, and other maxillofacial surgeries as reasons for admission. Factors potentially affecting LOS were also recorded, and their significance was determined using multiple logistic regression analyses. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. @*Results@#A total of 1,380 patients were included in this study. Most (84.5%) of our in-patients were of Malay ethnicity, and males outnumbered females in our sample by 502 subjects. The median LOS of our in-patients was 3 days. Sex, ethnicity, age, reason for admission, and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification were factors that significantly affected LOS. @*Conclusion@#The median LOS reported in this study was 3 days. LOS was significantly affected by sex, ethnicity, age, reason of admission and ASA classification.
RESUMO
@#Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the visual outcomes of phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation (IOL) surgery in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) in Malaysia over a 12-year period and to identify factors that may contribute to poor visual outcome. 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 95.0% 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.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare clinical pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment cycles with transabdominal ultrasound guidance during intrauterine catheter insemination (US-IUI) versus the “blind method” IUI without ultrasound guidance (BM-IUI). The secondary objective was to compare whether US-IUI had better patient tolerability and whether US-IUI made the insemination procedure easier for the clinician to perform compared to BM-IUI. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial done at the Reproductive Medicine Unit of General Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. We included women aged between 25 and 40 years who underwent an IUI treatment cycle with follicle-stimulating hormone injections for controlled ovarian stimulation. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were recruited for our study. The US-IUI group had 70 patients and the BM-IUI group had 60 patients. The clinical pregnancy rate was 10% in both groups (p> 0.995) and there were no significant difference between the groups for patient tolerability assessed by scores on a pain visual analog scale (p= 0.175) or level of difficulty for the clinician (p> 0.995). The multivariate analysis further showed no significant increase in the clinical pregnancy rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.85–1.34; p= 0.558) in the US-IUI group compared to the BM-IUI group even after adjusting for potential covariates. CONCLUSION: The conventional blind method for intrauterine catheter insemination is recommended for patients undergoing IUI treatment. The use of ultrasound during the insemination procedure increased the need for trained personnel to perform ultrasonography and increased the cost, but added no extra benefits for patients or clinicians.