RESUMO
Background: Health-care providers (HCP) engaged in demanding work like being involved in the care of COVID-19 positive and suspected cases are likely to have a lot of stress, anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues. It will be noteworthy to have an idea about the magnitude of the mental health problems in them to formulate effective intervention strategies for their well-being. Aims and Objectives: The aim of this study is to determine whether frontline HCP engaged in the treatment and care of COVID-19 positive and suspect cases experienced increased mental health problems. Methodology: Two hundred and fifty-one frontline HCPs engaged in COVID-19 duty and 97 nonfrontline (controls) HCP were assessed and compared using tools like General Health Questionnaire 12, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Appropriate statistical tools such as analysis of variance and Chi-square were used. Results: Frontline HCP who were directly involved in COVID-19 duty had a higher proportion (28.3%) of psychological morbidities as compared to 19.6% among controls; HCP-frontline had significantly 2.17 times chances of having psychological distress compared to HCP controls. Among, HCP-frontline 13.1% had clinical depression, whereas in the HCP control, this was 6.2%. Further, 20.3% of HCP frontline and 10.3% of HCP control had clinical anxiety, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.0011). Conclusion: Frontline HCPs working in demanding work such as COVID-19 patient care are susceptible to psychological distress, anxiety, and depression which warrant urgent attention.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Surgical margin status is an important prognostic factor in oral squamous cell carcinoma. The primary aim of the surgeon is to achieve a microscopically complete surgical resection during initial surgery. As there are no definite guidelines, a few surgeons use frozen section (FS) for margin assessment whereas others use gross examination (GE). STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the electronic medical records of 435 oral cavity cancer patients. As per the operating surgeon's preference, margin assessment was done using GE in 239 (54.94%) specimens, and FS was used in 196 (45.05%) specimens. Surgery was the primary modality of treatment for all patients, followed by adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Close/positive margins were seen in 6.63% of patients in the FS group and in 6.69% of patients in the GE group (P = .855). The sensitivity and specificity were 45.45% and 98.8%, respectively, for FS and 61.9% and 88.32% for GE. We found no survival benefit when FS was used for margin assessment (disease-free survival: P = .469; overall survival: 0.325). Incidence of inadequate margins was similar in both the groups (P = .608) even in patients with some form of previous treatment. CONCLUSION: We propose the judicious use of FS rather than routine use for margin assessment. The study reports that GE is an well-tolerated oncologic alternative to FS.
