scholarly journals Treatment of Laryngoceles: What Is the Progress over the Last Two Decades?

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karol Zelenik ◽  
Lucia Stanikova ◽  
Katarina Smatanova ◽  
Michal Cerny ◽  
Pavel Kominek

Objectives. To review surgical techniques used in the treatment of laryngoceles over the last two decades and point out developments and trends.Materials and Methods. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the JBI Library of Systematic Reviews were searched using the term “laryngocele.” Demographic data, type of laryngocele, presence of a laryngopyocele, type of treatment and need for a tracheotomy were assessed.Results. Overall, data on 86 patients were analyzed, culled from 50 articles, of which 41 were case reports and 9 were case series. No single systematic review or meta-analysis or randomized controlled trial has been published on the topic. Altogether, 71 laryngoceles in 63 patients met the criteria for further analysis focusing on surgical treatment. An external approach was selected in 25/29 (86.2%) cases of combined laryngoceles. Microlaryngoscopic resection using a CO2laser was performed in three cases and endoscopic robotic surgery in one case. The majority of patients with an internal laryngocele, 31/42 (73.8%), were treated using the microlaryngoscopy approach.Conclusions. Microlaryngoscopy involving the use of a CO2laser has become the main therapeutic procedure for the treatment of internal laryngoceles during the past 20 years. An external approach still remains the main therapeutic approach for the treatment of combined laryngoceles.

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 363-370
Author(s):  
Min Cheol Chang ◽  
Sang Gyu Kwak ◽  
Donghwi Park

AbstractBackgroundTherapeutic management of pain in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is challenging. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has analgesic effects on several types of pain. However, its effect on CRPS has not been elucidated clearly. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of the available clinical studies on rTMS treatment in patients with CRPS.Materials and methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS databases. We included studies published up to February 09, 2020, that fulfilled our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data regarding measurement of pain using the visual analog scale before and after rTMS treatment were collected to perform the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis Version 2.ResultsA total of three studies (one randomized controlled trial and two prospective observational studies) involving 41 patients were included in this meta-analysis. No significant reduction in pain was observed immediately after one rTMS treatment session or immediately after the entire schedule of rTMS treatment sessions (5 or 10 sessions; P > 0.05). However, pain significantly reduced 1 week after the entire schedule of rTMS sessions (P < 0.001).ConclusionrTMS appears to have a functional analgesic effect in patients with CRPS.


Author(s):  
Nikita Mohan ◽  
Muhammad Ali Fayyaz ◽  
Christopher del Rio ◽  
Navpreet Kaur Rajinder Singh Khurana ◽  
Sampada Sandip Vaidya ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically affected everyone in a hit or miss manner. Since it began, evidence of the neuro-invasive potential of the virus has been intensifying significantly. Several pathways have been hypothesized to elucidate the neurotropic nature of SARS-CoV2. It is the need of the hour to collect vital information. Objective To evaluate and correlate the neuro-radiological and neurological manifestations in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV2. To identify neuro-invasive pathways of COVID infection. Methods Relevant studies were identified through four databases—the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Science Direct, and Web of Science. These were searched using relevant keywords—“COVID-19,” “SARS-CoV2,” “neurological manifestations,” “neuroimaging,” “CT,” and “MRI.” Relevant articles were screened according to a pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria from December 2019 to August 2020. Results Our review included a total of 63 full text publications with 584 patients, composed mainly of observational studies, case reports, and case series. The most common neurological manifestations associated with COVID-19 were altered mental status, stroke, and paralysis. About 17.85% patients who underwent neuroimaging were found to be having ischemic changes suggestive of a stroke. This was followed by hemorrhagic changes as the second most common finding. The most commonly involved vessel was the Middle Cerebral Artery. Besides stroke, we found that SARS-CoV2 could be the cause for new-onset seizures, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, encephalitis, and many other severe neurological diseases. Conclusion The information that we have obtained so far will prove dynamic to healthcare providers working against the COVID-19 pandemic. It is necessary to be aware of these atypical neurological findings for the early diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 infected patients. However, to completely understand the connection between SARS-CoV2 and the nervous system, further research is necessary.


2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 904-911 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Zhu ◽  
Chengmao Zhou ◽  
Bing Huang ◽  
Lin Ruan ◽  
Rui Liang

Objective This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of granisetron plus dexamethasone for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Methods We searched the literature in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and CNKI. Results In total, 11 randomized controlled trials were enrolled in this analysis. The meta-analysis showed that granisetron in combination with dexamethasone was significantly more effective than granisetron alone in preventing PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopy surgery. No significant differences in adverse reactions (dizziness and headache) were found in association with dexamethasone. Conclusion Granisetron in combination with dexamethasone was significantly more effective than granisetron alone in preventing PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, with no difference in adverse reactions between the two groups. Granisetron alone or granisetron plus dexamethasone can be used to prevent PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2;23 (4;2) ◽  
pp. 135-148
Author(s):  
Zifeng Xu

Background: The pain control effect of ketamine versus control in women during cesarean operation is not well determined. Objectives: The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of ketamine versus control in cesarean section anesthesia for reducing the postoperative pain and analgesia. Study Design: We used meta-analysis to address this concern. Setting: Meta-analysis-based study. Methods: The databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify the relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ketamine versus control in controlling pain after cesarean section from inception to August 2018. Based on the Cochrane Handbook, the combined analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software. Results: A total of 20 RCTs with 1,737 patients who underwent cesarean section were included. Meta-analysis showed that the pain score in the ketamine group was less than that of the control group (mean difference [MD], –1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], –1.61, –0.59; P < 0.0001). Application of ketamine during cesarean section also resulted in decreased consumption of morphine when compared with the control group (MD, –6.11 mg; 95% CI, –9.93, –2.29; P = 0.002). In addition, the first time required for analgesia was significantly longer in the ketamine group than that of the control group (MD, 72.48 minutes; 95% CI, 50.85, 94.11; P < 0.00001). Limitations: Limited patients were included with moderate strength. Conclusions: Ketamine supplementation during cesarean section reduces pain and morphine consumption and prolongs the postoperative analgesia. Key words: Ketamine, cesarean section, randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis


2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-91
Author(s):  
Ming Xu ◽  
You-Liang Tao

To conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT), meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of drains in reducing complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for acute cholecystitis needs to be carried out. An electronic search of PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Library from January 1990 to January 2018 was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that compare prophylactic drainage with no drainage in LC for acute cholecystitis. The outcomes were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals (CIs) using RevMan 5.2. Four RCTs, which included 796 patients, were identified for analysis in our study. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of morbidities (OR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.55–2.76, P = 0.61). Abdominal pain was more severe in the drain group 24 hours after surgery (mean difference = 0.80, 95% CI 0.47–1.14; P < 0.00001). No significant difference was present with respect to wound infection rate and hospital stay. The use of abdominal drainage does not appear to be of any benefit in patients having undergone early LC for acute cholecystitis.


2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 411-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qili Liu ◽  
Chengmao Zhou ◽  
Zeqing Bao ◽  
Yu Zhu

Background This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery with general anesthesia. Methods We searched for randomized controlled clinical trials in PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. Results Nine studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis and showed no statistically significant difference between palonosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of PONV in the first 24 hours after surgery (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35–1.10). Palonosetron more effectively prevented vomiting at various time intervals during the first 24 hours postoperatively than did ondansetron: 0–2 hours (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26–0.78), 2–6 hours (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.39–1.40), and 6–24 hours (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.55–2.64). No significant differences in side effects were found between palonosetron and ondansetron (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40–1.14). Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrated that palonosetron is not more efficacious than ondansetron in the prevention of early PONV. However, palonosetron was more efficacious than ondansetron in the prevention of vomiting after laparoscopic surgery.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Saad Alhumaid ◽  
Abbas Al Mutair ◽  
Zainab Al Alawi ◽  
Ali A. Rabaan ◽  
Raghavendra Tirupathi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Currently there is no systematic review and meta-analysis of the global incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general adult population. Objectives To estimate the incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines and describe the demographic and clinical characteristics, triggers, presenting signs and symptoms, treatment and clinical course of confirmed cases. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] statement was followed. Methods Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2020 to 31 May 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: anaphylaxis, non-anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, nonanaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock, hypersensitivity, allergy reaction, allergic reaction, immunology reaction, immunologic reaction, angioedema, loss of consciousness, generalized erythema, urticaria, urticarial rash, cyanosis, grunting, stridor, tachypnoea, wheezing, tachycardia, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and tryptase. We included studies in adults of all ages in all healthcare settings. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To minimize heterogeneity, we performed sub-group analyses. Results Of the 1,734 papers that were identified, 26 articles were included in the systematic review (8 case report, 5 cohort, 4 case series, 2 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) and 14 articles (1 cohort, 2 case series, 1 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) were included in meta-analysis. Studies involving 26,337,421 vaccine recipients [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 14,505,399) and Moderna (n = 11,831,488)] were analyzed. The overall pooled prevalence estimate of anaphylaxis to both vaccines was 5.0 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.2, I2 = 81%, p =  < 0.0001), while the overall pooled prevalence estimate of nonanaphylactic reactions to both vaccines was 53.9 (95% CI 0.0 to 116.1, I2 = 99%, p =  < 0.0001). Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech resulted in higher anaphylactic reactions compared to Moderna (8.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 11.3, I2 = 85% versus 2.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 5.7, I2 = 59%). However, lower incidence of nonanaphylactic reactions was associated with Pfizer-BioNTech compared to Moderna (43.9, 95% CI 0.0 to 131.9, I2 = 99% versus 63.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 151.8, I2 = 98%). The funnel plots for possible publication bias for the pooled effect sizes to determine the incidence of anaphylaxis and nonanaphylactic reactions associated with mRNA COVID-19 immunization based on mRNA vaccine type appeared asymmetrical on visual inspection, and Egger’s tests confirmed asymmetry by producing p values < 0.05. Across the included studies, the most commonly identified risk factors for anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were female sex and personal history of atopy. The key triggers to anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions identified in these studies included foods, medications, stinging insects or jellyfish, contrast media, cosmetics and detergents, household products, and latex. Previous history of anaphylaxis; and comorbidities such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic and contact eczema/dermatitis and psoriasis and cholinergic urticaria were also found to be important. Conclusion The prevalence of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is very low; and nonanaphylactic reactions occur at higher rate, however, cutaneous reactions are largely self-limited. Both anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions should not discourage vaccination.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiling Su ◽  
Huiyan Feng ◽  
Tian Tian ◽  
Xiaoqian Liao ◽  
Yunhui Li ◽  
...  

Background: In recent years, the morbidity of ectopic pregnancy and the proportion of young and childless patients have increased year by year, which makes it important to early diagnose EP, effectively save patients' lives and furthest preserve their fertility. Methotrexate and mifepristone are most widely used in conservative treatments, however, there is no accurate conclusion about which therapy is better. Therefore, the aims in this meta-analysis are, on the one hand, to systematically analyze the efficacy of mifepristone combined with methotrexate in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy through existing studies, and to draw scientific conclusions. On the other hand, to fill the gap of relevant analysis in China and abroad, to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of inclusion trials and propose improvement measures and scientific designing schemes. Methods: Six electronic databases will be searched, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), and Wanfang Database (WF). Literature from October 2015 to October 2020 on randomized controlled trials will be searched, without any language or publication restriction. Search terms include mifepristone, methotrexate, ectopic pregnancy, and random (free word/synonym expansion). Included in a randomized controlled trial, the treatment group was treated with mifepristone combined with methotrexate, and the control group was treated with mifepristone alone. Revman 5.4 (provided by Cochrane) will be used to evaluate the quality of the literature, and the corresponding effect model will be selected to analyze the results. The cure rate will be the main outcome index, and the remaining outcome measures after literature inclusion will be the secondary outcome indexes. Result: Only when we finish this meta-analysis can we get the result. Discussion: The results of this study will provide reliable evidence for the efficacy of mifepristone combined with methotrexate therapy in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuefeng Ma ◽  
Shousheng Liu ◽  
Jie Zhang ◽  
Mengzhen Dong ◽  
Yifen Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: ALT value is often used to reflect the hepatic inflammation and injury in NAFLD patients, but many studies proved that ALT values were normal in many NAFLD patients. The aim of this study was to identify the summarized proportion of NAFLD patients with normal ALT value in the overall NAFLD patients. Methods: Electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library were searched for potential studies published from January 1, 2000 to September 30, 2019. Studies that have reported the number of NAFLD or NASH patients with normal and abnormal ALT value were included and analyzed. Abstracts, reviews, case reports, and letters were excluded. Results: A total of 11 studies with 4084 patients were included for assessing the summarized proportion of NAFLD patients with normal ALT in overall NAFLD patients. As the results shown, the summarized proportion of NAFLD patients with normal ALT value in overall NAFLD patients was 25% (95%CI: 20%-31%) which was calculated by the random-effects model. The summarized proportion of NASH patients with normal ALT value in overall NASH patients was 19% (95%CI: 13%-27%). Subgroup analysis includes region, study type, diagnostic method, and group size were conducted to investigate the resource of heterogeneity in the summarized proportion of NAFLD and NASH patients with normal ALT value. Conclusions: 25% NAFLD patients and 19% NASH patients possess the normal ALT value in the clinical manifestation. The value of ALT in the clinical diagnosis of NAFLD and NASH remains need be further testified.


Author(s):  
Pinky Kotecha ◽  
Alexander Light ◽  
Enrico Checcucci ◽  
Daniele Amparore ◽  
Cristian Fiori ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the data currently available regarding the repurposing of different drugs for Covid-19 treatment. Participants with suspected or diagnosed Covid-19 will be included. The interventions being considered are drugs being repurposed, and comparators will include standard of care treatment or placebo.MethodsWe searched Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, clinical trial registration site in the UK(NIHR), Europe (clinicaltrialsregister.eu), US (ClinicalTrials.gov) and internationally (isrctn.com), and reviewed the reference lists of articles for eligible articles published up to April 22, 2020. All studies in English that evaluated the efficacy of the listed drugs were included. Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tool were used to assess study quality. This systematic review adheres to the PRISMA guidelines. The protocol is available at PROSPERO (CRD42020180915).ResultsFrom 708 identified studies or clinical trials, 16 studies and 16 case reports met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 6 were randomized controlled trials (763 patients), 7 cohort studies (321 patients) and 3 case series (191 patients). Chloroquine (CQ) had a 100% discharge rate compared to 50% with lopinavir-ritonavir at day 14, however a trial has recommended against a high dosage due to cardiotoxic events. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown no significant improvement in negative seroconversion rate which is also seen in our meta-analysis (p=0.68). Adverse events with HCQ have a significant difference compared to the control group (p=0.001). Lopinavir-ritonavir has shown no improvement in time to clinical improvement which is seen in our meta-analyses (p=0.1). Remdesivir has shown no significant improvement in time to clinical improvement but this trial had insufficient power.DiscussionDue to the paucity in evidence, it is difficult to establish the efficacy of these drugs in the treatment of Covid-19 as currently there is no significant clinical effectiveness of the repurposed drugs. Further large clinical trials are required to achieve more reliable findings. A risk-benefit analysis is required on an individual basis to weigh out the potential improvement in clinical outcome and viral load reduction compared to the risks of the adverse events. (1-16)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document