Tenorrhaphy as an Alternative to Resection in the Treatment of Horizontal Strabismus in Children

Purpose. To evaluate the effectiveness of surgical treatment of horizontal strabismus by modified tenorrhaphy in comparison with standard resection in children. Material and methods. For 3 years (2017–2019), 560 patients with horizontal strabismus at the age from 2 to 14 years were operated. Of these, 288 patients (51.4%) underwent tenorrhaphy using a modified technique (main group) as augmentation surgery, 272 patients (48.6%) underwent classical resection (control group). Results. The average age of patients in the main group was 6 (3.46) years, in the control group – 5.8 (3.34) years. In the main group of patients, orthotropy was achieved in 85.4% of cases, in the control group – in 83.5% of cases, p = 0.523. The residual strabismus angle (up to 5°) was observed in 40 patients (14%) in the main group and in 44 patients (16.5%) in the control group of patients, p = 0.449. In the main group, additional correction of the residual angle was performed on the day after the operation using adjustable suture in 8 patients (2.8%). Reoperation in the long-term period was required for 10 patients (3.7%) in the control group and 3 patients (0.7%) in the main group, p = 0.039. Significant postoperative conjunctival thickening was found in 7.2% of patients in the main group. Conclusion. The effectiveness of tenorrhaphy is not inferior to classical resection and, in combination with recession (tenomyoplasty), gives predictable stable results. The tenorrhaphy method is technically simpler, safer, more physiological, can be easily corrected in the immediate postoperative period, has no risk of «losing» muscle and can be recommended as an alternative method of resection.

Surgical treatment to multiple primary lung cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background As there is no consensus on the optimal surgery strategy for multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC), we conducted this study to address this issue by comparing the prognosis of MPLC patients underwent different surgical strategies including sublobar resection and the standard resection through a systemic review and meta-analysis. Methods Relevant literature was obtained from three databases including PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were set for the screening of articles to be selected for further conduction of systemic review and meta-analysis. The HRs of OS of the sublobar group compared with standard resection group were extracted directly or calculated indirectly from included researches. Results Ten researches published from 2000 to 2017 were included in this study, with 468 and 445 MPLC cases for the standard resection group and sublobar resection group respectively. The result suggested that OS of MPLC patients underwent sublobar resection (segmentectomy or wedge resection for at least one lesion) was comparable with those underwent standard resection approach (lobectomy or pneumonectomy for all lesions), with HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67–1.71, p = 0.784. Further analysis found no difference in subgroups of synchronous and metachronous (from second metachronous lesion), different population region and dominant sex type. Conclusions This study may reveal that sublobar resection is acceptable for patients with MPLC at an early stage, because of the equivalent prognosis to the standard resection and better pulmonary function preservation. Further research is needed to validate these findings.

Surgical treatment to multiple primary lung cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background As there is no consensus on the optimal surgery strategy for multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC), we conducted this study to address this issue by comparing the prognosis of MPLC patients underwent different surgical strategies including sublobar resection and the standard resection through a systemic review and meta-analysis. Methods Relevant literature was obtained from three databases including PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were set for the screening of articles to be selected for further conduction of systemic review and meta-analysis. The HRs of OS of the sublobar group compared with standard resection group were extracted directly or calculated indirectly from included researches. ResultsTen researches published from 2000 to 2017 were included in this study, with 468 and 445 MPLC cases for the standard resection group and sublobar resection group respectively. The result suggested that OS of MPLC patients underwent sublobar resection (segmentectomy or wedge resection for at least one lesion) was comparable with those underwent standard resection approach (lobectomy or pneumonectomy for all lesions), with HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 - 1.71, p = 0.784. Further analysis found no difference in subgroups of synchronous and metachronous (from second metachronous lesion), different population region and dominant sex type. Conclusions This study may reveal that sublobar resection is acceptable for patients with MPLC at an early stage, because of the equivalent prognosis to the standard resection and better pulmonary function preservation. Further research is needed to validate these findings.

Surgical treatment to multiple primary lung cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background As there is no consensus on the optimal surgery strategy for multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC), we conducted this study to address this issue by comparing the prognosis of MPLC patients underwent different surgical strategies including sublobar resection and the standard resection through a systemic review and meta-analysis. Methods Relevant literature was obtained from three databases including PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were set for the screening of articles to be selected for further conduction of systemic review and meta-analysis. The HRs of OS of the sublobar group compared with standard resection group were extracted directly or calculated indirectly from included researches. Result s: Ten researches published from 2000 to 2017 were included in this study, with 468 and 445 MPLC cases for the standard resection group and sublobar resection group respectively. The result suggested that OS of MPLC patients underwent sublobar resection (segmentectomy or wedge resection for at least one lesion) was comparable with those underwent standard resection approach (lobectomy or pneumonectomy for all lesions), with HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 - 1.71, p = 0.784. Further analysis found no difference in subgroups of synchronous and metachronous (from second metachronous lesion), different population region and dominant sex type. Conclusions This study may reveal that sublobar resection is acceptable for patients with MPLC at an early stage, because of the equivalent prognosis to the standard resection and better pulmonary function preservation. Further research is needed to validate these findings.

Surgical treatment to multiple primary lung cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background As there is no consensus on the optimal surgery strategy for multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC), we conducted this study to address this issue by comparing the prognosis of MPLC patients underwent different surgical strategies including sublobar resection and the standard resection through a systemic review and meta-analysis. Methods Relevant literature was obtained from three databases including PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were set for the screening of articles to be selected for further conduction of systemic review and meta-analysis. The HRs of OS of the sublobar group compared with standard resection group were extracted directly or calculated indirectly from included researches. Result s: Ten researches published from 2000 to 2017 were included in this study, with 468 and 445 MPLC cases for the standard resection group and sublobar resection group respectively. The result suggested that OS of MPLC patients underwent sublobar resection (segmentectomy or wedge resection for at least one lesion) was comparable with those underwent standard resection approach (lobectomy or pneumonectomy for all lesions), with HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 - 1.71, p = 0.784. Further analysis found no difference in subgroups of synchronous and metachronous (from second metachronous lesion), different population region and dominant sex type. Conclusions This study may reveal that sublobar resection is acceptable for patients with MPLC at an early stage, because of the equivalent prognosis to the standard resection and better pulmonary function preservation. Further research is needed to validate these findings.