Mpox in pregnancy: Management, risks and challenges in Africa and lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Data on mpox in pregnancy are currently limited. Historically, only 65 cases in pregnancy have been reported globally since mpox was discovered in 1958. This includes 59 cases in the current outbreak. Vertical transmission was confirmed in one patient. Pregnant women are at high risk of severe disease owing to immunological and hormonal changes that increase susceptibility to infections in pregnancy. African women appear to be at higher risk of mpox infection and adverse outcomes in pregnancy for epidemiological and immunologic reasons, in addition to the background high rates of adverse feto-maternal outcomes in the region. This risk is potentially heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the possibility of mpox virus exportation/importation as a result of the lifting of movement restrictions and trans-border travels between countries affected by the current outbreak. Furthermore, coinfection with mpox and COVID-19 in pregnancy is possible, and the clinical features of both conditions may overlap. Challenges of diagnosis and management of mpox in pregnancy in Africa include patients concealing their travel history from healthcare providers and absconding from/evading isolation after diagnosis, shortage of personal protective equipment and polymerase chain reaction testing facilities for diagnosis, vaccine hesitancy/resistance, and poor disease notification systems. There is a need for local, regional and global support to strengthen the capacity of African countries to address these challenges and potentially reduce the disease burden among pregnant women in the continent.

Correlation between hysterosalpingography diagnosis and final hysterolaparoscopy with dye-test diagnosis in women with utero-tubal infertility: A cross-sectional study of the implication for which test should be the first-line investigation.

Objective: To assess the accuracy of hysterosalpingography in diagnosis of uterine and/or tubal factor infertility, using hysterolaparoscopy with dye test as the gold standard with an implication for which test should be the first-line investigation. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study of 96 women who underwent hysterosalpingography and hysterolaparoscopy with dye test. All women within reproductive age group with utero-tubal infertility who underwent both hysterosalpingography and hysterolaparoscopy with dye-test procedure were included. The outcome measures were proportions of tubal blockage and intrauterine pathology. Individual and overall mean accuracy were calculated for hysterosalpingography, using hysterolaparoscopy with dye test as the gold standard. Patient had procedure of hysterosalpingography first and both laparoscopic surgeons and patients were blinded to the outcome of hysterolaparoscopy with dye test until analysis. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Overall, 128 women were assessed for eligibility while 96 women finally completed the study. Hysterosalpingography demonstrated diagnostic accuracy of 77.8% (p < 0.001), 76.3% (p < 0.001) and 78.3% (p < 0.001) for right, left and bilateral tubal blockage, respectively. Overall accuracy of hysterosalpingography tubal factor assessment was 77.4 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval = 76.5% to 78.4%). Hysterosalpingography showed an accuracy of 85.7%, 86.6% and 76.7% for right, left and bilateral hydrosalpinx, respectively, given overall diagnostic accuracy of 83.0 ± 5.1% (95% confidence interval = 77.9% to 88.1%). Overall accuracy of hysterosalpingography in diagnosing intrauterine pathology was 68.5 ± 9.8% (95% confidence interval = 53.9% to 83.1%). Conclusion: Hysterosalpingography detects tubal blockade and intrauterine pathology poorly compared to hysterolaparoscopy with dye test. Hysterosalpingography may face unpredictable clinical situations biased by technological error, leading to unsuccessful evaluation and uncertain diagnosis. Although the cost-effectiveness, risk of surgery or anaesthesia flaws hysterolaparoscopy with dye test. Hysterosalpingography should not be the first-line utero-tubal assessment tool rather hysterolaparoscopy with dye test.

Eight-hour versus 24-h urethral catheter removal following elective caesarean section for reducing significant bacteriuria: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the preferred time to remove urethral catheter post caesarean section. AIM: To compare rate of significant bacteriuria and urinary retention following 8-h (study) and 24-h urethral catheter removal (control) post elective caesarean section. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of eligible participants that underwent elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia between March 2019 and November 2019 was conducted. Participants (150 in each arm) were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to either 8-h or 24-h group. Primary outcome measures included rates of significant bacteriuria 48-h post-operatively and acute urine retention 6-h post urethral catheter removal. Analysis was by Intention-to-treat. (www.pactr.org:PACTR202105874744483). RESULTS: There were 150 participants randomized into each arm and data collection was complete. Significant bacteriuria was less in 8-h group (3% versus 6.0%; risk ratio (RR): 0.85 CI: 0.60 to 5.66; p = 0.274), though not significant. Acute urinary retention requiring repeat catheterisation was significantly higher in 8-h group (11(7.3%) versus 0(0.0%); RR: 0.07; CI: 0.87 to 0.97; p = 0.001). Mean time until first voiding was slightly higher in 8-h group (211.4 ± 14.3 min versus 190.0 ± 18.3 min; mean difference (MD): 21.36; CI: -24.36 to 67.08; p = 0.203); but patient in this group had a lower mean time until ambulation (770.0 ± 26.1 min versus 809 ± 26.2 min; MD: -38.8; CI: -111.6 to 34.0; p = 0.300). The 8-h group were significantly more satisfied (82/150 (54.7%) versus 54/150 (36.0%); p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An 8-h group was associated with significant clinical satisfaction and acute urine retention compared to 24-h removal. The timing of urethral catheter removal did not affect rate of significant bacteriuria and other outcomes.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Residency Training: Perspective from a Low-Middle Income Country.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically impacted postgraduate training programmes worldwide. This study aims to evaluate the Nigerian situation with respect to surgical training, with a view to identifying gaps and proffering solutions. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of surgical residents in Nigeria was conducted between 27 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. A structured questionnaire designed using the free software Google Forms® was utilised for the study. The questionnaire was electronically distributed randomly to 250 surgical residents via emails and social media platforms including WhatsApp and Telegram. The data obtained was analysed by Google Forms®. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the ethics and research unit of the Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex (OAUTHC), Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria. RESULTS: At the end of the study period, 207 surgical residents completed and submitted the questionnaire, giving a response rate of 82.8%. The majority of respondents reported a reduction (164, 79.2%) or cancellation (11, 5.3%) of postgraduate programmes in their institutions. Of those who had academic programmes, meetings were done using virtual technology in all instances. The majority of respondents reported seeing fewer patients in the outpatient clinics (173, 83.6%), as well as a reduction in the number of emergency and elective operations (58.5% and 90.8%, respectively). About a third of the respondents (70, 33.8%) were contemplating emigrating from the country. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected the clinical, research and teaching components of surgical training in Nigeria. It has, however, led to increased adoption of digital technology which should be further explored in the face of current realities.

Impact of COVID-19 on the cost of surgical and obstetric care: experience from a Nigerian teaching hospital and a review of the Nigerian situation.

The public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be overstated. Its impact on the cost of surgical and obstetric care is significant. More so, in a country like Nigeria, where even before the pandemic, out-of-pocket spending (OOPS) has been the major payment method for healthcare. The increased cost of surgical and obstetric care occasioned by the pandemic has principally been due to the additional burden of ensuring the use of adequate/appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during patient care as a disease containment measure. These PPE are not readily available in public hospitals across Nigeria. Patients are therefore compelled to bear the financial burden of procuring scarce PPE for use by health care personnel, further increasing the already high cost of healthcare. In this study, we sought to appraise the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the cost of surgical and obstetric care in Nigeria, drawing from the experience from one of the major Nigerian teaching hospitals- the Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex (OAUTHC), Ile-Ife, Osun State. The cost of surgical and obstetric care was reviewed and compared pre- and during the COVID-19 pandemic, deriving relevant examples from some commonly performed surgical operations in our centre (OAUTHC). We reviewed patients' hospital bills and receipts of consumables procured for surgery. Our findings revealed that the cost of surgical and obstetric care during the COVID-19 pandemic had significantly increased. We identified gaps and made relevant recommendations on measures to reduce the additional costs of surgical and obstetric care during and beyond pandemic.