The Epidemiological Pattern of Skin Cancer from 2011 to 2022 among the Population of the Aseer Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The overall risk of developing cancer before the age of 75 years in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is 9.9%. We aimed to explore the pattern of skin cancer, specifically among the Saudi population residing in the Aseer region. We obtained data from the medical records of Aseer Central Hospital regional histopathological laboratory considering surgical pathology reports from 2011 to 2021. The 61-80-year-old age group represented most of the cases (41.4%), followed by the 41-60-year-old group at 24.1%. Men made up the majority of the cases (59.4%). Furthermore, the dataset predominantly consisted of Saudi nationals (94.3% of the sample). The percentage of cases diagnosed each year relative to the cumulative number of skin cancer cases varied each year, ranging from 1.6% in 2011 to 11.6% in 2017. The most common diagnoses were squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) with 230 cases (41.1%) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) with 147 cases (26.3%). The majority of cases occurred in the head and neck region (55.4%), followed by the lower limb (16.6%), trunk (13.6%), upper limb (8.2%), and pelvis (2.3%). There was a significant variation in the type of skin cancer across the age groups (p < 0.001) and across different body parts (p < 0.001). The incidence of skin cancer exhibited variability throughout the study period. The predominant diagnoses observed were SSC and BCC. Among the affected areas, the head and neck region displayed the highest prevalence, followed by the lower limb, trunk, upper limb, and pelvis.

The microbiological profile of isolates recovered from ICU patients with traumatic brain injuries at a tertiary care center, Southern Region, Saudi Arabia.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic head injury THI is a Neurosurgical condition in which brain function is interrupted as a result of blunt (motor vehicle accidents MVA, falls, and assaults) or penetrating trauma. Nearly half of all injuries are caused by head trauma. Head traumas are a leading cause of death and organ loss in young people, where this population accounts for the vast majority of TBI patients. METHODOLOGY: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at Asir Central Hospital, KSA with data from 2015 to 2019. Records of bacterial cultures and outcomes such as length of stay in the hospital were analyzed. In addition, treatment outcomes were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 300 ICU patient samples (69 patients) were included. Patients' ages ranged from 13 to 87 years with a mean age of 32.4 ± 17.5 years old. The most frequently reported diagnosis was RTA (71 %), followed by SDH (11.6 %), The most isolated organisms from the recovered samples were Klebsiella pneumoniae (27 %), followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (14.7 %). Regarding susceptibility, Tigecycline was the most sensitive (44 %), followed by Gentamicin (43.3 %). A total of 36 (52.2 %) patients stayed for less than one month, 24 (34.8 %) stayed for 1-3 months, and 7 (10.1 %) stayed for 3-6 months. The mortality rate in our study population was (40.6 %) as 28 patients died. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of pathogens in TBI needs to be determined in different institutions for the establishment of effective empiric antibiotic treatment following infections in traumatic brain injuries. This will ultimately help to improve treatment outcomes. In neurosurgical patients undergoing cranial procedures after trauma, a hospital-standardized antibiotic policy is effective in achieving low rates of bacterial infections especially MDR infections.

Comparing Renal Replacement Therapy Modalities in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare different modalities of renal replacement therapy in critically ill adults with acute kidney injury. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 25 May, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different renal replacement therapy modalities in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. STUDY SELECTION: Ten reviewers (working in pairs) independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. DATA EXTRACTION: We performed random-effects frequentist network meta-analyses and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess certainty of evidence. The primary analysis was a four-node analysis: continuous renal replacement therapy, intermittent hemodialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis, and peritoneal dialysis. The secondary analysis subdivided these four nodes into nine nodes including continuous veno-venous hemofiltration, continuous veno-venous hemodialysis, continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration, continuous arterio-venous hemodiafiltration, intermittent hemodialysis, intermittent hemodialysis with hemofiltration, slow efficiency extended dialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis with hemofiltration, and peritoneal dialysis. We set the minimal important difference threshold for mortality as 2.5% (relative difference, 0.04). DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty randomized controlled trials (n = 3,774 patients) proved eligible. There may be no difference in mortality between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93-1.18; low certainty), whereas continuous renal replacement therapy demonstrated a possible increase in mortality compared with slow efficiency extended dialysis (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.33; low certainty) and peritoneal dialysis (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.92-1.49; low certainty). Continuous renal replacement therapy may increase renal recovery compared with intermittent hemodialysis (relative risk, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.91-1.45; low certainty), whereas both continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis may be worse for renal recovery compared with slow efficiency extended dialysis and peritoneal dialysis (low certainty). Peritoneal dialysis was probably associated with the shortest duration of renal support and length of ICU stay compared with other interventions (low certainty for most comparisons). Slow efficiency extended dialysis may be associated with shortest length of hospital stay (low or moderate certainty for all comparisons) and days of mechanical ventilation (low certainty for all comparisons) compared with other interventions. There was no difference between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis in terms of hypotension (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.16; moderate certainty) or other complications of therapy, but an increased risk of hypotension and bleeding was seen with both modalities compared with peritoneal dialysis (low or moderate certainty). Complications of slow efficiency extended dialysis were not sufficiently reported to inform comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest there is no difference in mortality between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis although continuous renal replacement therapy may increases renal recovery compared with intermittent hemodialysis. Slow efficiency extended dialysis with hemofiltration may be the most effective intervention at reducing mortality. Peritoneal dialysis is associated with good efficacy, and the least number of complications however may not be practical in all settings. Importantly, all conclusions are based on very low to moderate certainty evidence, limited by imprecision. At the very least, ICU clinicians should feel comfortable that the differences between continuous renal replacement therapy, intermittent hemodialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis, and, where clinically appropriate, peritoneal dialysis are likely small, and any of these modalities is a reasonable option to employ in critically ill patients.