Estimating the Effect of Genital vs Extragenital Warts on Immunocompetent Indian Adult Patients; Quality of Life: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study.

Introduction: Extragenital warts, often known as EGWs, affect between 7% and 10% of the population. Despite the plethora of research on the impact of genital warts (GWs) on "Quality Of Life", EGWs have received little attention. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional investigation with the objective of contrasting the effects of GWs and EGWs on the health-related quality of life and other characteristics. Participants and Procedures: A cross-sectional clinical study was piloted at a tertiary care center. Participants in the study included two groups of healthy adults, each group consisting of 100 adult subjects. Those diagnosed with EGWs were included in group A, while patients diagnosed with GWs made up group B. The "Dermatology Life Quality Index" questionnaire was used to evaluate various parameters. Observations were compared for significance. Results: The majority of the subjects in both the groups were observed to have less than 10 warts. The Dermatology Life Quality Index score for the EGWs had an average of 8.66 ± 2.31 score; GWs had an average of 5.12 ± 3.25. This mean variance was statistically significant. The level of the dissatisfaction was highly significantly different among the groups and the subjects being more in the EGW group dissatisfied. Conclusion: The findings of this investigation indicate that EGWs have a significant and detrimental effect on the Quality Of Life. Medical experts must teach people how to prevent the disease's spread and recurrence due to its persistence. They must also consider the psychological and societal repercussions of the disease while discussing therapy choices.

Evaluation of Efficacy of Different Plating Systems in ZMC Fractures: An Original Research.

Objective: This study's objective was to assess and contrast the performance of several plating techniques in the treatment of zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) fractures. Group A (Microplate System), Group B (Titanium Mesh System), and Group C (Absorbable Plate System) plating systems were the ones that were studied. Materials and Methods: With 10 patients in each group, a retrospective analysis of 30 patients with ZMC fractures was done. The following information was gathered: fracture reduction, stable fixation, complications, and patient satisfaction. Analysis was done on patient-reported outcomes, surgical outcomes, and demographic factors. Results: Group B (Titanium Mesh System) came in second with rates of 70% and 80%, respectively, while Group A (Microplate System) showed the highest rates of fracture reduction (90%) and stable fixation (100%). For fracture reduction and stable fixation, Group C (Absorbable Plate System) demonstrated rates of 80% and 90%, respectively. For Groups A, B, and C, the complication rates were 20%, 30%, and 10%, respectively. For Groups A, B, and C, the patient satisfaction levels were 90%, 80%, and 70%, respectively. Conclusion: According to the results, the Microplate System (Group A) is better than the Titanium Mesh System (Group B) and the Absorbable Plate System (Group C) in terms of fracture reduction and stable fixation when treating ZMC fractures. All plating systems had acceptable complication rates, and overall patient satisfaction ratings were high. Fracture features and patient-specific considerations should be taken into account while making individualized treatment options.