A multidisciplinary approach to triage patients with breast disease during the COVID-19 pandemic: Experience from a tertiary care center in the developing world.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has created a need to prioritize care because of limitation of resources. Owing to the heterogeneity and high prevalence of breast cancers, the need to prioritize care in this vulnerable population is essential. While various medical societies have published recommendations to manage breast disease during the COVID-19 pandemic, most are focused on the Western world and do not necessarily address the challenges of a resource-limited setting. AIM: In this article, we describe our institutional approach for prioritizing care for patients presenting with breast disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: The breast disease management guidelines were developed and approved with the expertise of the Multidisciplinary Breast Program Leadership Committee (BPLC) of the Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan. These guidelines were inspired, adapted, and modified keeping in view the needs of our resource-limited healthcare system. These recommendations are also congruent with the ethical guidelines developed by the Center of Biomedical Ethics and Culture (CBEC) at the Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT), Karachi. Our institutional recommendations outline a framework to triage patients based on the urgency of care, scheduling conflicts, and tumor board recommendations, optimizing healthcare workers' schedules, operating room reallocation, and protocols. We also describe the "Virtual Blended Clinics", a resource-friendly means of conducting virtual clinics and a comprehensive plan for transitioning back into the post-COVID routine. CONCLUSION: Our institutional experience may be considered as a guide during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for triaging care in a resource-limited setting; however, these are not meant to be universally applicable, and individual cases must be tailored based on physicians' clinical judgment to provide the best quality care.

Evaluation of laparoscopic appendectomy vs. open appendectomy: a retrospective study at Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.

OBJECTIVE: To compare open and laparoscopic appendectomies and to evaluate the level of efficacy of both types of appendectomy performed at Aga Khan University Hospital (AKUH). METHODS: Based on this strong study rationale, a clinical audit of patient's records was performed to evaluate the significance of this technique as a treatment modality. The study population comprised of patients with appendicitis admitted in the Department of Surgery from January 2004 to December 2004. The patients' charts were reviewed to ascertain whether the procedure was done as an acute case or as an elective procedure. The predictor variables explored in this study were: age, gender, ultrasound and CT focused procedure, operative time, post-operative stay, number of hours required for the return of bowel function, use of narcotic analgesia and the total hospital bill of the respective patients. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients' clinical charts were reviewed. Of these, 29 patients had had laparoscopic appendectomies and the remaining 20 had open appendectomies. The mean post-operative stay in days was relatively shorter for laparoscopic appendectomy (1.97 +/- 2.3) compared to open appendectomy (3.1 +/- 1.8). The average time for the return of bowel movement was remarkably lesser for laparoscopic appendectomy (10.6 +/- 8.2) hours than open appendectomy (21 +/- 13) hours. Two of the independent variables: CT focused (P-value: 0.01) and operative times in minutes (P-value: 0.06) were found to be significantly associated with the types of appendectomy. Hence our study found that laparoscopic appendectomy, although relatively expensive, is a safe and effective procedure for the removal of appendix over open appendectomy.