Quality of life after robotic versus conventional minimally invasive cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Optimizing postoperative quality of life (QoL) is an essential aspect of surgical oncology. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) decreases surgical morbidity and improves QoL outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare post-operative QoL after oncologic resections using different MIS modalities. The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases were searched for articles that compared post-operative QoL in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) or laparoscopic surgery (LS) versus robotic surgery (RS) for malignancy. Quality assessment was performed using the ROBINS-I and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) tools. Meta-analysis was performed using an inverse-variance random effects model. 27 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). 15 studies had a low risk of bias, while 11 had a moderate risk of bias and 1 had serious risk of bias. 8330 patients (RS: 5090, LS/VATS: 3240) from across 25 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Global QoL was significantly better after robotic surgery in the pooled analysis overall (SMD: - 0.28 [95% CI: - 0.49, - 0.08]), as well as in the prostatectomy and gastrectomy subgroups. GRADE certainty of evidence was low. Analysis of EPIC-26 subdomains also suggested greater sexual function after robotic versus laparoscopic prostatectomy. Robotic and conventional MIS approaches produce similar postoperative QoL after oncologic surgery for various tumor types, although advantages may emerge in some patient populations. Our results may assist surgeons in counseling patients who are undergoing oncologic surgery.

An assessment of public experiences and expectations with physicians: a cross sectional study from Karachi, Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: Although physicians are highly regarded members of society, patients are not always satisfied with their care, suggesting a mismatch between the public's expectations and reality. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine the public's expectations regarding roles and responsibilities of a physician, to assess patient experiences, and to evaluate factors associated with the two outcomes. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted via face-to-face structured interviews from July 14th to August 2nd, 2023, in Karachi, Pakistan. The study sample comprised 424 consenting adults enrolled by visiting public spaces (malls, parks, hospitals, and residential areas). A modified version of 'Exceptionally Good Doctor Likert scale', and 'Patient Picker-15' (PPE-15) questionnaires was used. The Likert and PPE-15 sections were scored through pre-decided criteria for expectations and experience, respectively, and categorized using a median cut-off into high and low expectations and negative and positive experiences, respectively for simple and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A median score of 30.5/ 34 (IQR = 3.3) was found for expectations and 4/ 14 (IQR = 4) for experiences. Significant factors associated with expectations were older age groups (OR = 4.54 [1.18-17.50]) and higher monthly household incomes (0.40 [0.20-0.79]), while the odds of negative experiences were lower after visits to emergency departments (0.38 [0.18-0.84]) and private health care centers (0.31 [0.13-0.70]). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the public has high expectations from physicians, however their experiences are not always positive. Initiatives to develop a patient-centric ethos are needed for which we outline recommendations to both the public and physicians, respectively.

Early recognition and management of maternal sepsis in Pakistan: a feasibility study of the implementation of FAST-M intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Maternal sepsis is the third leading cause of maternal mortality globally. WHO and collaborators developed a care bundle called FAST-M (Fluids, Antibiotics, Source identification and treatment, Transfer and Monitoring) for early identification and management of maternal sepsis in low-resource settings. This study aimed to determine feasibility of FAST-M intervention in a low-resource setting in Pakistan. The FAST-M intervention consists of maternal sepsis screening tools, treatment bundle and implementation programme. DESIGN AND SETTING: A feasibility study with before and after design was conducted in women with suspected maternal sepsis admitted at the Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences hospital Hyderabad. The study outcomes were compared between baseline and intervention phases. In the baseline phase (2 months), the existing sepsis care practices were recorded, followed by a training programme for healthcare providers on the application of FAST-M tools. These tools were implemented in the intervention phase (4 months) to assess any change in clinical practices compared with the baseline phase. RESULTS: During the FAST-M implementation, 439 women were included in the study. 242/439 were suspected maternal infection cases, and 138/242 were women with suspected maternal sepsis. The FAST-M bundle was implemented in women with suspected maternal sepsis. Following the FAST-M intervention, significant changes were observed. Improvements were seen in the monitoring of oxygen saturation measurements (25.5% vs 100%; difference: 74%; 95% CI: 68.4% to 80.5%; p<0.01), fetal heart rate assessment (58% vs 100%; difference: 42.0%; 95% CI: 33.7% to 50.3%; p≤0.01) and measurement of urine output (76.5% vs 100%; difference: 23.5%; 95% CI: 17.6% to 29.4%; p<0.01). Women with suspected maternal sepsis received all components of the treatment bundle within 1 hour of sepsis recognition (0% vs 70.5%; difference: 70.5%; 95% CI: 60.4% to 80.6%; p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Implementation of the FAST-M intervention was considered feasible and enhanced early identification and management of maternal sepsis at the study site. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17105658.

Evaluation of the FAST-M maternal sepsis intervention in Pakistan: A qualitative exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization and partners developed and evaluated a maternity-specific sepsis care bundle called 'FAST-M' for low-resource settings. However, this bundle has not yet been studied in Asia. Our study sought to evaluate the perceptions of healthcare providers about the implementation of the FAST-M intervention in Pakistan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted at a public sector hospital in Hyderabad. We conducted three focus group discussions with healthcare providers including doctors, nurses, and healthcare administrators (n = 22) who implemented the FAST-M intervention. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as a guiding framework for data collection and analysis. The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach and deductive methods. RESULTS: Five overarching themes emerged: (I) FAST-M intervention and its significance including HCPs believing in the advantages of using the intervention to improve clinical practices; (II) Influence of outer and inner settings including non-availability of resources in the facility for sepsis care; (III) HCPs perceptions about sustainability, which were positive (IV) Integration into the clinical setting including HCPs views on the existing gaps, for example, shortage of HCPs and communication gaps, and their recommendations to improve these; and (V) Outcomes of the intervention including improved clinical processes and outcomes using the FAST-M intervention. Significant improvement in patient monitoring and FAST-M bundle completion within an hour of diagnosis of sepsis was reported by the HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: The healthcare providers' views were positive about the intervention, its outcomes, and long-term sustainability. The qualitative data provided findings on the acceptability of the overall implementation processes to support subsequent scaling up of the intervention.

Multidimensional Quality of Life After Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Maximizing patients' quality of life (QoL) is a central goal in surgical oncology. Currently, both laparoscopic and robotic surgery are viable options in rectal cancer (RC) resections. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the differences in postoperative QoL between the two operative modalities. METHODOLOGY: This review was conducted in adherence to the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases were searched for articles comparing QoL in patients undergoing laparoscopic versus robotic surgery for RC. Seven studies were included (two randomized controlled trials, four prospective cohorts, and one retrospective cohort) out of which six reported data suitable for meta-analysis. Global QoL and QoL subdomains, such as physical and social functioning, were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I and Cochrane RoB-2 tools. RESULTS: Data on 869 patients (440 laparoscopic and 429 robotic surgery) across six studies were meta-analyzed. There was no significant difference in global QoL (Mean Difference:-0.43 [95% Confidence Interval:-3.49-2.62]). Physical functioning was superior after robotic surgery (1.92 [0.97-2.87]). However, nausea/vomiting, pain, and fatigue did not differ between groups. Perception of body image was worse after laparoscopic surgery (-5.06 [-9.05- -1.07]). Other psychosocial subdomains (emotional, cognitive, role, and social functioning) were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic and robotic surgery for RC have comparable QoL overall, for both physical and psychological dimensions. Our results may assist the management-related decision-making in surgical treatment of RC.

The Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

COVID-19 has proved to be a serious, and consequential disease that has affected millions of people globally. Previously, the adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) have been observed with increasing the risk of pneumonia and COVID-19. This meta-analysis aims to address the relationship between the use of PPI and the severity of COVID-19 infection. We conducted a systemic literature search from PUBMED, Science Direct, and Cinahl from December 2019 to January 2022. Published and unpublished randomized control trials and cohort studies were included. Review Manager was used for all statistical analyses. In total, 14 studies were included in this systemic review and meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest include: (1) susceptibility of COVID-19 infection and (2) severity of COVID-19 (defined as the composite of poor outcomes: ICU admission, need for oxygen therapy, need for a ventilator, or death), and (3) mortality due to COVID-19. PPI use was marginally associated with a nominal but statistically significant increase in the risk of COVID-19 infection (OR 1.05 [1.01, 1.09]; I2 97%, p = 0.007). PPI use also increased the risk of the composite poor outcome (OR 1.84 [1.71, 1.99]; I2 98%, p < 0.00001) and mortality (OR 1.12 [1.00, 1.25]; I2 84%, p = 0.05) in patients with COVID-19.