No abstract

India (popUlation 943 million) has seen a highly significant decrease in the prevalence of leprosy since the introduction of multi-drug therapy (MDT) in 1981. From a prevalence rate of 57/10,000 of the population in March 1981, the figure has declined to 5•2/ 1 0,000 in March 1999. This was possible due to the creation of a completely vertical (specialized) infrastructure for leprosy control in the 218 endemic districts of the country and skeleton vertical staff in the remaining districts, coupled with the recruitment of additional staff on contract basis to provide MDT through vertical staff in endemic districts and mobile treatment units in the moderate and low endemic districts. Despite all efforts, however, new case detection has not shown a decline over the last 14 years due to the presence of hidden (and undiagnosed) cases. Therefore, in order to intensify and hasten progress towards elimination (less than I case per 10,000 of the population) in the whole country, it was decided to implement a massive leprosy elimination campaign (LEC) in all the StateslUnion Territories (UTs). The reports of 22 StateslUTs indicate that 415 out of the total of 490 districts in the country were covered by modified LEC (MLEC), with 85% coverage of the population. The campaign used in India was modified from the pattern previously described by the World Health Organization. The detection of hidden or suspected cases took place within a short, intensive period of 6-7 days and relied heavily on house-to-house searches by General Health Care staff trained in leprosy detection and confirmation was made by appropriately trained staff. This MLEC received widespread Government and public support, resulting in the detection of 454,290 hidden cases of leprosy, whilst providing training to a large number of General Health Care staff and volunteers and creating widespread awareness about leprosy and the availability of treatment free of charge for all cases. This programme proved to be one of the most successful health care interventions undertaken in India in recent years, particularly in the states of Bihar and Orissa. Although a few states in India are unlikely to reach the current WHO goal of elimination before end of the year 2000, the results of the MLEC strongly support the possibility that elimination levels will be achieved in the majority of states by the end of the year 2000 and at national level by the end of the year 2002.

Nasogastric decompression seems to be widely employed in cholecystectomiesdespite evidence to the contrary. Based on a questionnaire given to 100 surgeons routinely doing cholecystectomies we found decompression being employed by the majority. 43% were unwilling to change their protocol. Our prospective randomised controUed trial of 162 cholecystectomies was done to assess intubation morbidity, related complications and influence on recovery. The objective was to determine if nasogastric decompression was scientifically based or conjectural. 130 patients underwent elective surgery and 32 required surgery for acute cholecystitis or associated common bile duct exploration. Both groups were randomised into tube and no-tube groups. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, distension and respiratory complications were noted and revealed no statistically significant group differences. No tube groups had earlier return of bowel motility, required lesser parenteral support and were discharged earlier compared to intubated patients. Out of81 patients without decompression, only 7(8.6%) needed intubation due to vomiting whereas 2(3%) intubated cases required reinsertion of the tube due to ileus. Detailed analysis of these patients did not reveal any predictive criteria for selective intubation. We conclude that nasogastric decompression is used indiscriminately without scientific reasoning. Our prospective randomised trial does not favour intubation in elective or emergency setting for cholecystectomies. Intubation is needless in 92% cases and delays recovery. No criteria could be identified to preselect patients for intubation. MJAFI 2000, 56 : 17-20