Illness wellness scale: novel grading system for performance status of patients under surgical care.

BACKGROUND: Grading the illness using clinical parameters is essential for the daily progress of inpatients. Existing systems do not incorporate these parameters holistically. The study was designed to internally validate the illness wellness scale, based upon clinical assessment of the patients requiring surgical care, for their risk stratification and uniformity of communication between health care providers. METHODS: Prospective observational study conducted at a tertiary care hospital. An expert panel devised the scale, and it was modified after feedback from 100 health care providers. A total of 210 patients (150 for internal validation and 60 for inter-observer variability) who required care under the department of surgical disciplines were enrolled. This included patients presenting to surgery OPD, admitted to COVID/non-COVID surgical wards and ICUs, aged ≥16 years. RESULTS: The response rate of the final illness wellness scale was 95% with 86% positive feedback and a mean of 1.7 on the Likert scale for ease of use (one being very easy and five being difficult). It showed excellent consistency and minimal inter-observer variability with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) above 0.9. In the internal validation cohort (n = 150), univariate and multivariable analysis of factors affecting mortality revealed that categorical risk stratification, age ≥ 60 years, presence or absence of co-morbidities especially hypertension and chronic kidney disease significantly affect mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The Illness wellness scale is an effective tool for uniformly communicating between health care professionals and is also a strong predictor of risk stratification and mortality in patients requiring surgical care.

Comparison of Non-Operative Mesotherapy and Surgery in the Management of Superficial Lipomas.

BACKGROUND: Lipomas are benign adipocytic tumours. Surgical excision is the gold standard for treating such lipomas, but it results in unaesthetic scarring. METHODS: A total of 126 patients were randomised into two groups. The patients in Group A underwent mesotherapy (n = 66) and those in Group B underwent surgery (n = 60). The patients in Group A group received six sessions of mesotherapy treatment at 2-week intervals. Both groups were followed up for 12 weeks, during which they were assessed for complications arising from treatment, reduction of the size of the lipoma and cosmetic outcomes. RESULTS: The overall mean age of the patients was 32.93 (± 10.1) years old and the mean volume of the lipomas was 2.29 (± 3.8) mL. A 55.86% (P = 0.0032) mean reduction in the volume of lipomas was noted in the patients who received mesotherapy, while one patient showed a gain of 16% by volume. The patients in Group A (cosmetic score ≥ 4: 63%) were happier with the treatment than those in Group B (cosmetic score ≥ 4: 21%). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that mesotherapy modestly reduces the volume of lipomas with very few and minor complications and excellent cosmetic outcomes.