Introduction: The purpose of this study is to identify the incidence of clavicle fractures in newborn associated with fetal, maternal and process of deliveries in Kuantan General Hospital from June 2012 until January 2014. This study is to determine epidemiological data of clavicle fractures, maternal and baby risk factors associated with clavicle fractures of newborn and its’ outcome. Methods: This is a prospective study. 13 patients were identified to fulfill the inclusion criteria of the study. The data of sociodemographic, associated fetal and maternal risk factors and the outcomes were recorded using proforma. The statistical data analysis was done using SPSS 12.0. Results: Out of 20,257 live births at our centre during the study period, 13 infants were diagnosed to have clavicle fractures, giving an incidence of 0.64 per 1000 live births. There were 5 (38.5%) left, 7 (53.8%) right and one (7.7%) bilateral fracture. All fractures located at the mid shaft of the clavicle and none have associated brachial plexus injuries. All infants were delivered through vaginal delivery (61.5%); five through assisted delivery (instrumental); 2 (15.4%) forcep and 3 (23.1%) vacuum. Two of the babies developed shoulder dystocia. The average birth weight was 3371 grams (SD 0.269) and mean gestational age was 38.7 weeks (SD 1.16). Five of the mothers (38.5%) were primigravida and eight (61.5%) were multigravida in which,7 (53.8%)were healthy without other co-morbidty, 5 (38.5%) having gestational diabetis and one (7.7%) hypertension. The average maternal weight was 62.0 kg and height 1.58 metres with average BMI of 24.16 (3.29SD). All eventually had a complete recovery at 6 weeks with clinical and radiological evident of fracture union. Conclusions: In conclusion, all patients with clavicle fractures were found following vaginal delivery. There were no associations between neonatal clavicle fractures with maternal or baby risk factors. All fractures healed without any complications.

Introduction: The number of people suffering from diabetic foot infection (DFI) has increased precipitously over the years in Malaysia, owing to increased population, urbanisation, the surge of number of people with obesity and physical inactivity. As one of the most dreaded complications of diabetes mellitus, DFI is associated with high morbidity and mortality. We aim to study the microbiological profile of patients with DFI at a university hospital in Kuantan, Pahang. Materials and methods: This retrospective study was carried out at at Sultan Ahmad Shah Medical Centre @IIUM (SASMEC @IIUM) from 1 January 2018 to 30 April 2019. Patients’ demographic data, types of infection and surgical intervention, and the microbiological profile were obtained from the medical records. Results: A total of 142 causative pathogens were cultured from 130 tissue samples, with an average of 1.09 pathogens per lesion. Majority of the pathogens were gram-negative pathogens (52.8%). Staphylococcus sp. was the most common pathogen isolated (22.5%). This was followed by Streptococcus sp. (10.6%), Pseudomonas sp. (9.2%), Morganella sp. (5.6%), Klebsiella sp. (4.9%), Enterobacter sp. (4.9%), and others. Among the 142 pathogens, there were 9 multidrug-resistant strains observed. Most of the antibiotics were effective against the gram-positive pathogens except benzylpenicillin, tetracyclin, fusidic acid and ciprofloxacin. Meanwhile, cefotaxime, amoxicillin and ampicillin-sulbactam were also not suitable against gramnegative pathogens. Oxacillin and sulfamethoxazole/ trimethoprim can be used as empirical antibiotics against gram-positive pathogens, while vancomycin should be reserved for patients with septic shock or suspected multidrug resistant strain infection. Piperacillin/tazobactam and ceftazidime can be used as empirical antibiotics against gram-negative pathogens. Conclusion: Early initiation of empirical antibiotic(s) is paramount to stymie the infection from getting worse while waiting for the identification of causative pathogens in the management of DFI. This study provides a guide for treating physicians to initiate the most appropriate empirical antibiotic in DFI.

As the number of COVID-19-related infections and deaths increased exponentially in the during 2020, few countries were equipped to manage and curb this novel coronavirus. Initially there was no proven cure or vaccine to this novel virus (SARS-Cov-2), leaving the authorities with no choice but to impose quarantines at the short-term expense of their economies. As we gain more knowledge on this novel virus, the tried-and-tested method of selective testing of the symptomatic patients, used successfully in almost all infectious respiratory diseases, has been replaced with traceand-test method, as most of the infected patients remained asymptomatic. In early 2021, the availability of vaccines provided a shed of light out from this pandemic. Nevertheless, we faced an enormous task in juggling between vaccination of the population, managing patients with COVID-19 infection as well as non-COVID-19 patients. Here, we share our experience and response in managing this healthcare crisis across a two-year period during the pandemic and we hope other centres can learn from what we went through and help them derive a protocol to navigate through a future pandemic.