Search

This comparison study of two groups within an inception cohort aimed to compare the frequency of motor impairment between preschool children with univentricular and biventricular critical congenital heart disease (CHD) not diagnosed with cerebral palsy/acquired brain injury, describe and compare their motor profiles and explore predictors of motor impairment in each group.Children with an intellectual quotient At a mean age of 55.4 (standard deviation 3.77) months, motor impairment was present in 11.8% of those with biventricular critical CHD, and 32.4% (p < 0.001) of those with univentricular critical CHD. The greatest difference between children with biventricular and univentricular CHD was seen in total test scores 8.73(2.9) versus 6.44(2.8) (p < 0.01) and in balance skills, 8.84 (2.8) versus 6.97 (2.5) (p = 0.001). Manual dexterity mean scores of children with univentricular CHD were significantly below the general population mean (>than one standard deviation). Independent odds ratio for motor impairment in children with biventricular critical CHD was presence of chromosomal abnormality, odds ratio 10.9 (CI 2.13–55.8) (p = 0.004); and in children with univentricular critical CHD odds ratio were: postoperative day 1–5 highest lactate (mmol/L), OR: 1.65 (C1.04–2.62) (p = 0.034), and dialysis requirement any time before the 4.5-year-old assessment, OR: 7.8 (CI 1.08–56.5) (p = 0.042).Early assessment of motor skills, particularly balance and manual dexterity, allows for intervention and supports that can address challenges during the school years.

While terms such as ‘essential’ and ‘nonessential’ used amidst the COVID-19 pandemic may serve a practical purpose, they also pose a risk of obstructing our view of the harmful indirect health consequences of this crisis. SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths in children are minimal compared to adults, but the pandemic impacts other ‘essential’ aspects of children’s health including child development and the associated areas of paediatric behaviour, mental health, and maltreatment. Alongside the management of severe SARS-CoV-2 cases in emergency rooms and intensive care units, continuing to care for children with developmental disabilities must also be concurrently championed as ‘essential’ during this crisis. The potentially devastating lifelong effects of the pandemic and isolation on an already vulnerable population demand that action be taken now. Video conferences and phone calls are ‘essential’ instruments we can use to continue to provide quality care for our patients.

IntroductionA major barrier to improving childhood cancer survival is the perception that paediatric oncology services are too costly for low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) health systems. We conducted a systematic review to synthesise existing evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of treating childhood cancers in LMICs.MethodsWe searched multiple databases from their inception to March 2019. All studies reporting costs or cost-effectiveness of treating any childhood cancer in an LMIC were included. We appraised included articles using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Where possible, we extracted or calculated the cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted using reported survival and country-specific life expectancy. Cost/DALY averted was compared with per capita gross domestic product (GDP) as per WHO-Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective guidelines to determine cost-effectiveness.ResultsOf 2802 studies identified, 30 met inclusion criteria. Studies represented 22 countries and nine different malignancies. The most commonly studied cancers were acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (n=10), Burkitt lymphoma (n=4) and Wilms tumour (n=3). The median CHEERS checklist score was 18 of 24. Many studies omitted key cost inputs. Notably, only 11 studies included healthcare worker salaries. Cost/DALY averted was extracted or calculated for 12 studies and ranged from US$22 to US$4475, although the lower-end costs were primarily from studies that omitted key cost components. In all 12, cost/DALY averted through treatment was substantially less than country per capita GDP, and therefore considered very cost-effective.ConclusionMany included studies did not account for key cost inputs, thus underestimating true treatment costs. Costs/DALY averted were nonetheless substantially lower than per capita GDP, suggesting that even if all relevant inputs are included, LMIC childhood cancer treatment is consistently very cost-effective. While additional rigorous economic evaluations are required, our results can inform the development of LMIC national childhood cancer strategies.

Laparoscopic colorectal cancer operations in obese patients pose technical challenges that may negatively impact oncologic adequacy. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections in obese compared to non-obese patients. Short- and long-term outcomes were assessed secondarily. A systematic literature search was conducted from inception until October 01, 2014. Studies that compared outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal malignant neoplasms in obese and non-obese patients were selected for meta-analysis. Studies that defined obesity as body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 were included. Oncologic, operative, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed-effects models. For oncologic and survival outcomes, a subgroup analysis was conducted for rectal cancer and a secondary analysis was conducted for Asian studies that used a BMI cutoff of 25 kg/m2. Thirteen observational studies with a total of 4550 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Lymph node retrieval, distal, and circumferential margins, and 5-year disease-free and overall survival were similar in the obese and non-obese groups. Conversion rate (OR 2.11, 95 % CI 1.58–2.81), postoperative morbidity (OR 1.54, 95 % CI 1.21–1.97), wound infection (OR 2.43, 95 % CI 1.46–4.03), and anastomotic leak (OR 1.65, 95 % CI 1.01–2.71) were all significantly increased in the obese group. Laparoscopic colorectal cancer operations in obese patients pose an increased technical challenge as demonstrated by higher conversion rates and higher risk of postoperative complications compared to non-obese patients. Despite these challenges, oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections is comparable in both groups.