RESUMEN
Background Emergency contraception (EC) plays a pivotal role in the prevention of unintended pregnancies following unprotected sexual intercourse. Men's awareness regarding emergency contraception is pivotal for informed decision-making and for enhancing reproductive health in this context. This study investigated Syrian men's awareness and perspectives on emergency contraception to inform diverse reproductive health initiatives. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study in Syria, from June 2022 and April 2023. Our study included male participants aged 18 years or older who held Syrian nationality and volunteered to participate. The data collection involved administering a questionnaire comprising three sections (knowledge, attitude, and barrier assessment), encompassing a total of 30 questions. Data analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (IBM SPSS Statistics, Armonk, NY). Results Most participants were aged 18-25 (65.7%) and single (75.4%) and held a university degree (79.3%). The knowledge of emergency contraception was low (36.1%), with the Internet and social media (77.5%) being the primary sources of information. While 89% held positive attitudes toward emergency contraception, only 37.3% supported nonprescription availability. Age, income, and desire for children were associated with knowledge, attitudes, and the use of emergency contraception. Men aged 26-35 exhibited the highest positive attitude (8.11±1.83). Those desiring no children showed higher attitude scores (7.42±2.04). Income was positively associated with knowledge (adjusted odds ratio {AOR}=1.75 and confidence interval {CI}=1.02-2.99) and emergency contraception use (AOR=2.87 and CI=1.27-6.48). Conclusion This study underscores the knowledge gap regarding emergency contraception in Syrian men. Despite positive attitudes, awareness remains limited, particularly among those of childbearing age. Targeted education and improved accessibility to emergency contraception can enhance its use among men, particularly in those with low socioeconomic status and younger age groups.
RESUMEN
Ventricular septal defect (VSD) is common in pediatric patients. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of using fast-track anesthesia and comparing it to traditional anesthesia, among children undergoing a transthoracic device closure for VSD. A systematic review following the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted. Relevant literature was identified through specific search terms in the Scopus, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (Embase), Web of Science, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar databases. The inclusion criteria focused on observational studies that compared fast-track anesthesia with conventional anesthesia in pediatric VSD closure cases. Data extraction, quality assessment, and meta-analysis were performed using standard differences in means. Initially, 6,535 papers were identified, and subsequent screening of titles and abstracts led to the inclusion of four retrospective studies from a total of 51 studies. The analysis encompassed 477 patients, with 235 in the fast-track anesthesia group and 242 in the conventional anesthesia group. No statistically significant disparities were observed between the two groups concerning the operative duration and hemodynamic variations post-intubation or post-procedure (P >0.05). Nevertheless, the fast-track anesthesia group demonstrated significantly reduced healthcare expenses as well as shorter periods of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and overall hospitalization compared to conventional anesthesia (P <0.05). The use of fast-track anesthesia in combination with transthoracic device closure for VSD demonstrates a safe and effective approach for pediatric patients. This approach results in reduced healthcare costs (10,000 Renminbi (RMB)) and shorter durations of mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, and hospitalization compared to conventional anesthesia. Further clinical trials are necessary to confirm these results and assess long-term outcomes.