scholarly journals Narrative Review of Surgery for Myasthenia Gravis

2021 ◽  
Vol 05 (04) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Aaron R. Dezube ◽  
◽  
Ashley L. Deeb ◽  
Michael T. Jaklitsch ◽  
◽  
...  

Myasthenia Gravis (MG) is a rare autoimmune disorder characterized by antibody mediated blockade of neuromuscular transmission. Up until the last decade, evidence suggesting benefit of thymectomy for myasthenia gravis has been based on non-randomized control studies. Our paper serves as an expert narrative review of new literature pertaining to surgical management of myasthenia gravis based on review of articles from PubMed and Cochrane database from date of inception through June 14, 2021. We used the MeSH search terms: “myasthenia gravis”; “thymectomy”; “thymoma”; and “surgery” to identify any new relevant articles for inclusion in our review. The results of these studies are summarized below. We reviewed multiple articles including two randomized control trials. As a result of these studies over the past decade, the American Academy of Neurology’s most recent practice advisory, published online March 25, 2020, gives a level ‘B’ recommendation for thymectomy for MG in patients with acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive generalized MG age 18-65 years old. They additionally noted the need for further discussion surrounding the benefits and risks of surgery and whether minimally invasive approaches to thymectomy would provide the same benefits as the traditional transsternal approach. Evidence recommending thymectomy during pregnancy remains limited due to lack of available data. Emerging evidence suggests that performance of video-assisted or robotic-assisted thymectomy is feasible, but further study is needed due to a lack of randomized control trials.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miho Kimachi ◽  
Akira Onishi ◽  
Aran Tajika ◽  
Kimihiko Kimachi ◽  
Toshi Furukawa

Abstract The limited availability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in nephrology undermines causal inferences in meta-analyses. Systematic reviews of observational studies have grown more common under such circumstances. We conducted systematic reviews of all comparative observational studies in nephrology from 2006 to 2016 to assess the trends in the past decade. We then focused on the meta-analyses combining observational studies and RCTs to evaluate the systematic differences in effect estimates between study designs using two statistical methods: by estimating the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) of the pooled OR obtained from observational studies versus those from RCTs and by examining the discrepancies in their statistical significance. The number of systematic reviews of observational studies in nephrology had grown by 11.7-fold in the past decade. Among 56 records combining observational studies and RCTs, ROR suggested that the estimates between study designs agreed well (ROR: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.90-1.23). However, almost half of the reviews led to discrepant interpretations in terms of statistical significance. In conclusion, the findings based on ROR might encourage researchers to justify the inclusion of observational studies in meta-analyses. However, caution is needed as the interpretations based on statistical significance were less concordant than those based on ROR.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miho Kimachi ◽  
Akira Onishi ◽  
Aran Tajika ◽  
Kimihiko Kimachi ◽  
Toshi A. Furukawa

AbstractThe limited availability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in nephrology undermines causal inferences in meta-analyses. Systematic reviews of observational studies have grown more common under such circumstances. We conducted systematic reviews of all comparative observational studies in nephrology from 2006 to 2016 to assess the trends in the past decade. We then focused on the meta-analyses combining observational studies and RCTs to evaluate the systematic differences in effect estimates between study designs using two statistical methods: by estimating the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) of the pooled OR obtained from observational studies versus those from RCTs and by examining the discrepancies in their statistical significance. The number of systematic reviews of observational studies in nephrology had grown by 11.7-fold in the past decade. Among 56 records combining observational studies and RCTs, ROR suggested that the estimates between study designs agreed well (ROR 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.90–1.23). However, almost half of the reviews led to discrepant interpretations in terms of statistical significance. In conclusion, the findings based on ROR might encourage researchers to justify the inclusion of observational studies in meta-analyses. However, caution is needed, as the interpretations based on statistical significance were less concordant than those based on ROR.


2021 ◽  
pp. 174749302110132
Author(s):  
Ahmed Mohamed ◽  
Nida Fatima ◽  
Ashfaq Shuaib ◽  
Maher Saqqur

Introduction There is controversy if direct to comprehensive center “mothership” (MS) or stopping at primary center for thrombolysis before transfer to comprehensive center “drip-and- ship” (DS) are best models of treatment of acute stroke. In this study, we compare MS and DS models to evaluate the best option of functional outcome. Methods Studies between 1990 and 2020 were extracted from online electronic databases. We compared the clinical outcomes, critical time measurements, functional independence and mortality were then compared. Results A total of 7,824 patients’ data were retrieved from 13 publications (3 randomized control trials and 10 retrospective ones). 4,639 (59.3%) patients were treated under MS model and 3,185 (40.7%) followed the DS model with mean age of 70.01±3.58 vs. 69.03±3.36; p< 0 .001, respectively. The National Institute Health Stroke Scale was 15.57±3.83 for the MS and 15.72±2.99 for the DS model (p=<0.001). The mean symptoms onset-to-puncture time was significantly shorter in the MS group compared to the DS (159.69 min vs. 223.89 min; p=<0.001, respectively). Moreover, the collected data indicated no significant difference between symptom’s onset to intravenous (IV) thrombolysis time and stroke onset-to-successful recanalization time (p=0.205 and p=<0.001, respectively). Patients had significantly worse functional outcome [modified rankin score (mRS)] (3-6) at 90-days in the DS model [Odds Ratio (OR): 1.47, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.13-1.92, p<0.004] and 1.49-folds higher likelihood of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (OR: 1.49, 95%CI: 1.22-1.81, p<0.0001) compared to MS. However, there were no statistically significant difference in terms of mortality (OR: 1.16, 95%CI: 0.87-1.55, p=0.32) and successful recanalization (OR: 1.12, 95%CI: 0.76-1.65, p=0.56) between the two models of care. Conclusion Patients in the MS model have significantly improved functional independence and recovery. Further studies are needed as the data from prospectively randomized studies is not of sufficient quality to make definite recommendations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
G Placella ◽  
V Pace ◽  
P Antinolfi ◽  
V Salini

Abstract Nowadays venous VTE represents an important perioperative and postoperative complication in patients undergoing elective Major Orthopedic Surgery (MOS). There are significant discrepancies between clinical practice, international recommendations, and published guidelines. Although thromboembolic events may be less common these days than in the past, they can still lead to serious medical complications. Therefore, most patients undergoing MOS procedures are provided with one of the thromboprophylactic treatments. The optimum timing of LMWH administrations remains debated. Customized structured electronic searches in PubMed and Cochrane database. Meta-Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trials, Systematic Reviews on different strategies of the use of LMWH for MOS. Studies on prophylactic regimens showed that subcutaneous LMWH plays a key role in the management of thromboprophylaxis in MOS. However, some controversies still stand. Among those most relevant, it remains unclear whether to start thromboprophylaxis before or after MOS to better balance the risks of clotting and bleeding. With regards to different times of LMWH administration, there is no convincing evidence that starting prophylaxis 12 hours preoperatively is associated with lower risks of VTE compared to prophylaxis started 12 to 24 hours postoperatively. Furthermore, it seems that the most safe and efficient LMWH regimen is the one called “Just-in-time” (LMWH started 6 hours post-op).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document