No abstract

Background: Ovarian tumors are a heterogeneous group of neoplasm that have become increasingly important now-a-days because of their large variety of neoplastic entities and gradually increased rate of mortality due to female genital cancers. Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the histopathological pattern and clinical presentation of malignant ovarian tumors according to the WHO classification of ovarian tumors [2003] in a tertiary care center of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included and studied a total of 54 cases of malignant ovarian tumors at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Popular Medical College Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh over a period of 3 years from Jan 2015 to Dec 2017. Results: The mean age was 47.44±14.24 years old (age ranged from 20-70 years). Of the 54 malignant ovarian tumors studied, the commonest histological pattern observed in the study was serous cyst adenocarcinoma constituting 26 cases (48.15%) followed by adenocarcinoma of ovary (25.9%), mucinous cyst adenocarcinoma (14.8%), endometriod adenocarcinoma (3.7%), dysgerminoma (3.7%) and ovarian choriocarcinoma (3.7%). High level of serum CA125 was found in most of the cases (n=48; 88.89%). The chief complaints were abdominal pain (n=38; 70.37%) and abdominal distension (n=29; 53.70%). Majority were admitted with less than one month duration of symptoms. The size of the tumor varied from 2.2 to 20 cm. All the patients were admitted in III and IV stage. Conclusions: Serous cyst adenocarcinoma was the common finding of this study. The prognosis and varying therapeutic strategies of malignant ovarian tumors necessitate an accurate histopathological evaluation. J Dhaka Medical College, Vol. 29, No.2, October, 2020, Page 100-105

No abstract

Background and Objectives: Crossmatch incompatibility among the blood donor and recipient is common. The cause for which may vary in patients despite rational transfusion practices. Provision of appropriate blood components can also be complicated by transfusion, pregnancy, exposure to drug, or various diseases. Therefore, the reasons for assessing the crossmatching incompatibility are important in transfusion safety. The present study was conducted to determine the prevalence of crossmatch incompatibility in this region and the reasons behind it. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, 32,403 crossmatch data were reviewed from crossmatch register between July 2018 and June 2019. Crossmatch was performed with both saline and antihuman globulin method. Incompatible crossmatch was evaluated further. Results: About 0.15% (n = 50) of patients showed crossmatch incompatibility: of this, 66% were female and 34% male. About 80% of crossmatch incompatibility was associated with multiple transfusions; of these, direct antiglobulin test (DAT) was positive in 78% (n = 39) and indirect antiglobulin test (IAT)/antibody screen was positive in 68% (n = 34) of patients. Both DAT and IAT were positive in 46% (n = 23). Further antibody identification was done. Conclusion: This study highlights the need for introducing antibody screening before compatibility testing, especially in multitransfused individuals.

Background and Aims: During general anaesthesia, laryngoscope is a common equipment for intubation used by anaesthesiologists. Laryngoscope has been identified as a potential source of cross infection. Though guidelines exist for appropriate disinfection practices, recent reviews suggested that current methods of disinfection areless effective and compliance is poor with the established protocols. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey to study the current disinfection practices being followed by a cross section of anaesthesiologists. Methods: A simple questionnaire containing 14 questions was distributed amongst anaesthesiologists through online as well as direct contact. Data were analyzed with percentage analysis. Results: Out of 150 anaesthesiologists, 120 submitted the completed questionnaires. Residents constituted 41% and 46% were consultants. Eighteen (12%) used only tap water for cleaning and 132 (88%) used a chemical agent after rinsing with water. Out of 132, 76 (51%) used detergent/soap solution, 29 (19%) would wash and then soak in disinfectant or germicidal agents (glutaraldehyde, povidone iodine and chlorhexidine) and 18 (12%) would wipe the blade with an alcohol swab. With respect to disinfection of laryngoscope handles, 70% respondents said they used an alcohol swab, 18% did not use any method, 9% were not aware of the method being used, while 3% did not respond. Conclusion: Our results indicate wide variation in methods of decontamination of laryngoscopes. Awareness regarding laryngoscope as a potential source of infection was high. We need to standardize and implement guidelines on a national level and make available resources which will help to improve patient safety. CBMJ 2020 January: Vol. 09 No. 01 P: 04-10