Purpose: To investigate the differences in treatment effects between primary intravitreal bevacizumab injections and ranibizumab injections in type 1 retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and aggressive ROP. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 61 eyes from 32 premature infants who underwent primary intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections for ROP. P atients with type 1 or aggressive ROP were divided into two groups: the intravitreal bevacizumab injection group and the ranibizumab injection group. We analyzed the period until plus disease disappeared after the first injection, reactivation, additional treatment, and the primary treatment success rate (cases in which retinal vessels formed to the periphery without additional treatment after the first injection). Results: In the type 1 ROP group, the primary treatment success rates for 16 patients (30 eyes) in the bevacizumab injection group and 6 patients (12 eyes) in the ranibizumab injection group were 100.0% and 91.7%, respectively. In the aggressive ROP group, the primary treatment success rates for 5 patients (9 eyes) in the bevacizumab injection group and 5 patients (10 eyes) in the ranibizumab injection group were 55.6% and 60.0%, respectively. In both type 1 and aggressive ROP, there were no significant differences in the period until plus disease disappeared after the first injection, reactivation rate, or additional treatment rate depending on the type of anti-VEGF. Conclusions Bevacizumab and ranibizumab demonstrated similar efficacy in type 1 ROP and aggressive ROP. However, because aggressive ROP required additional treatment more frequently regardless of the type of anti-VEGF used, close follow-up after the primary injection is essential.

Acute appendicitis is very rare in premature neonates. Preoperative diagnosis of this condition is difficult, and then it leads to high morbidity and mortality. We report 9-day-old premature male with ruptured acute appendicitis presented with pneumoperitoneum on plain films of the abdomen. Awareness of this rare condition and possible differential diagnosis in this age group is also discussed.
Abdomen ; Appendicitis ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Humans ; Infant, Low Birth Weight ; Infant, Newborn ; Male ; Pneumoperitoneum

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, has had a major psychological impact on healthcare workers. However, very few scales are available to specifically assess work-related stress and anxiety in healthcare workers responding to a viral epidemic. This study developed a new assessment tool, the Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics-9 (SAVE-9) and aimed to validate it among healthcare workers directly affected by COVID-19 in Korea. Methods: A total of 1,019 healthcare workers responded through anonymous questionnaires during April 20–30, 2020. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to explore the construct validity, and the reliability was assessed using internal consistency measures of Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was conducted to define the most appropriate cut-off point of SAVE-9 using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale (GAD-7; ≥ 5). Second, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to establish convergent validity for the SAVE-9 questionnaire with GAD-7 and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Results: The nine-item scale had satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.795). It adopted a two-factor structure: 1) anxiety regarding viral epidemics and 2) work-related stress associated with viral epidemics. A cut-off score of 22 for the SAVE-9 ascertained levels of stress and anxiety in response to a viral epidemic in healthcare workers that warranted clinical attention. Correlations between the SAVE-9 and the other scales were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion The results suggest that the SAVE-9 is a useful, reliable, and valid tool to evaluate stress and anxiety responses in healthcare workers during viral epidemics.