Outpatient Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery Is a Safe Alternative to Inpatient Admission.

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is usually performed as an inpatient procedure. The COVID-19 pandemic effected a practice change at our institution with outpatient DBS performed because of limited inpatient and surgical resources. Although this alleviated use of hospital resources, the comparative safety of outpatient DBS surgery is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and incidence of early postoperative complications in patients undergoing DBS procedures in the outpatient vs inpatient setting. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all outpatient and inpatient DBS procedures performed by a single surgeon between January 2018 and November 2022. The main outcome measures used for comparison between the 2 groups were total complications, length of stay, rate of postoperative infection, postoperative hemorrhage rate, 30-day emergency department (ED) visits and readmissions, and IV antihypertensive requirement. RESULTS: A total of 44 outpatient DBS surgeries were compared with 70 inpatient DBS surgeries. The outpatient DBS cohort had a shorter mean postoperative stay (4.19 vs 39.59 hours, P = .0015), lower total complication rate (2.3% vs 12.8%, P = .1457), and lower wound infection rate (0% vs 2.9%, P = .52) compared with the inpatient cohort, but the difference in complications was not statistically significant. In the 30-day follow-up period, ED visits were similar between the cohorts (6.8% vs 7.1%, P = .735), but no outpatient DBS patient required readmission, whereas all inpatient DBS patients visiting the ED were readmitted ( P = .155). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that DBS can be safely performed on an outpatient basis with same-day hospital discharge and close continuous monitoring.

Adverse Effects of Personal Protective Equipment and Their Self-Practiced Preventive Strategies among the Covid-19 Frontline Health Care Workers.

BACKGROUND: Owing to the highly contagious nature of SARS-CoV-2, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) among the healthcare workers (HCWs) is mandatory. However, PPE associated adverse effects are also there. OBJECTIVE: To study the adverse effects associated with PPE and their preventive measures amongst the HCWs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A descriptive study was conducted among 200 HCWs working in a Covid center of a tertiary care center. The participants were sent the questionnaires online. Some of them not having smart phones were interviewed telephonically. Their information profile, the various adverse effects associated with PPE, and the preventive measures being practiced by them were noted. Data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. RESULTS: Total 97% HCWs reported adverse effects with hazmat suit; 96% with N 95 mask; 92% with goggle and 78% with gloves. The adverse effects associated with the prolonged use of the mask were erythema; erosions and scar at the nasal bridge; ear pain; difficulty in breathing; and headache. Sixty-seven percent of the participants had sweating with the use of gloves, which led to cutaneous exfoliation such as dry hands (55%) and skin itching (43%). Moisturizers and natural oils were used to prevent the dryness of hands. For the pressure related injury over the nasal bridge due to N95 mask, participants used to apply Band-Aid (adhesive bandage) and cotton dressing. CONCLUSION: Adverse skin reactions related to PPE are common among HCWs. Comprehensive assessment of the skin condition and awareness on adverse skin reactions should be advocated.