Background: Mechanical low back pain (MLBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide, with well-established risk factors such as obesity, occupational ergonomics, and core muscle strength. However, the role of pes planus (flat foot) as a contributing factor remains underrecognized. This study aims to investigate the association between flat foot and MLBP using Clarke’s angle as an objective measure of foot posture. Methods: A case-control study was conducted in South Timor Tengah Regency, East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia, from December 2024 to February 2025. Fifty patients diagnosed with MLBP and 50 healthy controls were enrolled. Foot type assessment was performed using Clarke’s angle, with a cutoff of ≤30° indicating flat foot. Pain severity in the LBP group was recorded using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Statistical analysis was conducted using chi-square and independent t-tests, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results: Flat foot was significantly more prevalent in the LBP group (58%) than in the control group (18%) (p = 0.000; OR: 6.29, 95% CI: 2.52-15.69), indicating that individuals with flat feet are over six times more likely to experience MLBP. No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding BMI, age, or gender. Conclusion: These findings suggest that flat foot is an independent risk factor for MLBP, likely due to altered spinal biomechanics and compensatory postural changes. Clinicians should consider foot posture assessments in MLBP patients and explore targeted interventions, such as orthotic support, to mitigate symptoms.

Introduction: Pain is considered as the fifth vital sign that should be considered in assessing patients. For clinicians to evaluate and determine the right pain interventions, there should be parameters such as pain scale. Our objective in this study is to determine factors affecting pain scale preferences in suburban and rural populations. The pain scales used in this study are FPS-R (Faces Pain Scale-Revised), VRS (Verbal Rating Scale), VAS (Visual Analogue Scale), and NRS (Numering Rating Scale). Method: This study uses observational design with an interview approach and a cross-sectional study. Areas covered are within Indonesia, which are marginal areas of Tangerang district border, and two rural areas in Serukam, West Kalimantan, and Soe, East Nusa Tenggara. Data collected will be analyzed using SPSS 25 software. Result: Populations within the suburban areas prefer NRS (52.08%) as their pain scale, and populations in rural areas prefer FPS-R 76.92%). Factors affecting pain scale preferences are location areas, as well as last education, with statistical significance of p<0.05. Discussion: Our study showed that the choice of several pain scales is not appropriate for specific demographics due to the complexity of these scales. Factors that should be considered are the location areas and education level, as some population in remote areas have better understanding of simpler pain scales. Conclusion: Complexity or simpler components may be an underlying reason for the preference of score selection to assess pain scales in some population. Therefore, the selection of pain scales should be adjusted to specific demographics so that clinicians can provide appropriate management with appropriate pain scales.

Intestinal malrotation is an embryological abnormality modifying the classic anatomy of the small and large bowels, particularly the topographical one. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is characterised by anatomical lesions with preferential intestinal tropism. These two conditions are rarely associated. They represent a real diagnostic and therapeutic challenge due to the overlap of non-specific symptoms and the complexity of the clinical management. We report the case of a young woman presenting with a flare-up of her IBD and a partial common mesentery syndrome. Clinicians should be aware of the potential pitfalls of the two entities to propose the adequate therapeutic strategy regarding the full understanding of the anatomy, notably when surgery is needed.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerging human disease caused by a novel coronavirus, causing a global pandemic crisis. Probiotics and/or colchicine may be considered as options for treatment since they have anti-viral, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory effects. The aim of the current review was to assess the effectiveness of probiotic supplements and colchicine on symptoms, duration, and progression of mild and moderate cases of COVID-19 infection. Review: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in the United States with 182 participants who were randomly assigned to receive daily oral probiotic (Lactobacillus rhamnosus) LGG or placebo for 28 days. The study indicated that LGG is well-tolerated and is associated with a delay in the onset of COVID-19 infection, a reduction in the incidence of symptoms, and alterations in the structure of the gut microbiome when administered as post-exposure prophylaxis within seven days of exposure. Colchicine may lessen mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis. Conclusion: Probiotics and/or colchicine may be viable treatment options for COVID-19 patients. To examine the efficacy of probiotics and colchicine in the treatment of COVID-19, it is necessary to conduct additional clinical trials and provide clinicians with evidence, as there are currently insufficient studies to support this conclusion.