Preservation versus dissection of the intercostobrachial nerve for breast cancer surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of preservation of the intercostobrachial nerve (ICBN) versus its dissection for patients who underwent breast surgery. Methods: The authors searched Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus from inception until March 2023. Records were screened for eligible studies, and all relevant outcomes were pooled as an odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% CI in the meta-analysis models using RevMan version 5.4. Results: These results from 11 studies (1021 patients) favored preservation of the ICBN over its dissection in terms of anaesthesia and hypaesthesia [OR 0.50, (95% CI, 0.31-0.82); P = 0.006] and [OR 0.33, (95% CI, 0.16-0.68); P = 0.003], respectively. Whereas the overall effect favored ICBN dissection over preservation in the case of hyperaesthesia [OR 4.34, (95% CI, 1.43-13.15); P = 0.01]. Conversely, no significant variance was detected between the two groups in terms of pain [OR 0.68, (95% CI, 0.28-1.61) P = 0.38], paraesthesia [OR 0.88, (95% CI, 0.49-1.60); P = 0.68], and analgesia [OR 1.46, (95% CI, 0.05-45.69); P = 0.83]. Conclusion: This meta-analysis revealed that the preservation of the ICBN has a significant effect on the disturbance of sensory parameters of hypaesthesia and anaesthesia when compared to its dissection. Further studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to precisely compare both techniques on a wider range of parameters.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy vs. Robotic assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Following compelling evidence that open techniques may be related to better survival and disease free survival rates, many gynecologic oncologists in the US have turned away from performing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. While this may be warranted as a safety concern, there is little high-quality data on the head-to-head comparison of LRH and RRH and therefore little evidence to answer the question of where this decrease in patient survival is originating from. In our systematic review, we aimed to compare the complications and outcomes of LRH against those of RRH. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from database inception until February 1st, 2022. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: A total of 676 studies were identified and screened through a manual three-step process. Ultimately 33 studies were included in our final analysis. We included all studies that compared LRH and RRH and included at least one of our selected outcomes. We included retrospective cohorts, prospective cohorts, case-control, and randomized clinical trials. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Data was independently extracted manually by multiple observers and the analysis was performed using Review Manager Software. PRISMA guidelines were followed. We analyzed homogenous data using a fixed-effects model, while a random-effects model was used for heterogeneous outcomes. We found that following RRH, women had a decreased hospital stay (MD = 0.80[0.38,1.21],(P < 0.002). We found no differences in estimated blood loss (MD = 35.24[-0.40,70.89],(P = 0.05), blood transfusion rate ((OR = 1.32[0.86,2.02],(P = 0.20), rate of post-operative complications (OR = 0.84[0.60,1.17],(P = 0.30), the operative time (MD = 6.01[-4.64,16.66],(P = 0.27), number of resected lymph node (MD = -1.22[-3.28,0.84],(P = 0.25) intraoperative complications (OR = 0.78[0.51,1.19],(P = 0.25), five-year overall survival (OR = 1.37[0.51,3.69],(P = 0.53), lifetime disease free survival (OR = 0.89[0.59,1.32],(P = 0.55), intraoperative and postoperative mortality (within 30 days) (OR = 1.30[0.66,2.54],(P = 0.44), and recurrence (OR = 1.14[0.79,1.64],(P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: RRH seems to result in the patient leaving the hospital sooner after surgery. We were unable to find any differences in our ten other outcomes related to complications or efficacy. These findings suggest that the decreased survival seen in minimally invasive RH in previous studies could be due to factors inherent to both LRH and RRH. PROSPERO PROSPECTIVE REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022273727.

Efficacy and Safety of Rifaximin in the Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Hepatic Encephalopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rifaximin is an oral antimicrobial drug with a broad-spectrum effect. It locally regulates the function and structure of intestinal bacteria and decreases intestinal endotoxemia. We aimed to investigate the preventive role of rifaximin in recurrent episodes of hepatic encephalopathy in cases with a history of hepatic diseases. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for the relevant studies using the following search strategy: "(Rifaximin) OR (Xifaxan) AND (cirrhosis) OR (encephalopathy)." We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We included the following outcomes: recurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, adverse events, mortality rate, and time to the first episode of hepatic encephalopathy from the time of randomization (days). We performed the analysis of homogeneous data under the fixed-effects model, while analysis of heterogeneous data was performed under the random-effects model. RESULTS: We analyzed data obtained from 999 patients from 7 included trials. The overall risk ratio proved that the rifaximin group was associated with a lower recurrence rate than the control group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.61[0.50, 0.73], P = .001). We found no significant variation in both groups regarding adverse events (RR = 1.08 [0.89, 1.32], P = .41), and mortality rates (RR = 0.98 [0.61, 1.57], P = .93). The overall risk of bias results was low. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis showed that in patients allocated to the rifaximin group, the incidence rate of hepatic encephalopathy was significantly lower when compared with those in the control group with no difference in both groups regarding adverse events and mortality rates.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.

Recent evidence has shown an increase in recurrence and a decrease in overall survival in patients treated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) open techniques (ORH). In addition, several high quality trials were recently published regarding the laparoscopic treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought out to reassess the recurrence rates, overall survival, complications and outcomes associated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) techniques against open techniques (ORH) when robotic assisted techniques were excluded. We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.Gov and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. We included all studies that compared with early stage cervical cancer receiving LRH compared with ORH. We included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort trials. We included studies that included LRH and RRH as long as data was available to separate the two arms. We excluded studies that combined LRH and RRH without supplying data to differentiate. Of 1244 total studies, we used a manual three step screening process. Sixty studies ultimately met our criteria. We performed this review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We analyzed continuous data using mean difference (MD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using odds ratio (OR) and a 95% CI. Review Manager and Endnote software were utilized in the synthesis. We found that when excluding RRH, the was no significant difference regarding 5-year overall Survival (OR = 1.24 [0.94, 1.64], (P = 0.12), disease free survival (OR = 1.00 [0.80, 1.26], (P = 0.98), recurrence (OR = 1.01 [0.81, 1.25], (P = 0.95), or intraoperative complications (OR = 1.38 [0.94, 2.04], (P = 0.10). LRH was statistically better than ORH in terms of estimated blood loss (MD = - 325.55 [- 386.16, - 264.94] (P < 0.001), blood transfusion rate (OR = 0.28 [0.14, 0.55], (P = 0.002), postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.70 [0.55, 0.90], (P = 0.005), and length of hospital stay (MD = - 3.64[- 4.27, - 3.01], (P < 0.001). ORH was superior in terms of operating time (MD = 20.48 [8.62, 32.35], (P = 0.007) and number of resected lymph nodes (MD = - 2.80 [- 4.35, - 1.24], (P = 0.004). The previously seen increase recurrence and decrease in survival is not seen in LRH when robotic assisted techniques are included and all new high quality is considered. LRH is also associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower complication rate.Prospero Prospective Registration Number: CRD42022267138.

Efficacy of Single-Pill, Triple Antihypertensive Therapy in Patients with Uncontrolled Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Systemic arterial hypertension is the most common preventable risk factor for all causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide with a prevalence of 35-40% of the adults. Despite the wide variety of effective antihypertensive medications, most hypertensive patients remain uncontrolled. However, the combination of ACE inhibitor, diuretics, and calcium antagonist for the triple therapy in a single Pill Combination (SPC) is an efficient regimen in hypertension management. It is recommended by the ESH 2018 guideline, which offers better efficacy and compliance to treatment. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine single-pill combination in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for relevant clinical trials. We conducted the risk of bias assessment using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We performed the analysis of continuous data using mean difference (MD) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using risk ratio (RR) and relative 95% CI. We included the analysis of the following outcomes: systolic blood pressure (SBP), Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), Heart rate (HR), 24 h Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for SBP, and 24 h ABPM for DBP. RESULTS: We included six clinical trials. We found that the triple therapy significantly reduces SBP by 24 mmHg (MD = - 24.65 [22.41, 26.89], (P < 0.01)), DBP by 12 mmHg (MD = 12.41 [11.53, 13.29], (P < 0.01)), 24-h ABPM for SBP by 14 mmHg (MD = 14.08 [9.10, 19.05], (P < 0.01)), and ABPM 24 h DBP by 7 mmHg (MD = 7.01 [5.37, 8.65], (P < 0.01)). We noted no significant difference of the single pill on heart rate (MD = 0.81 [- 0.04, 1.67], (P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine is effective in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressures by 24 and 12 mmHg respectively. Over 24 h, the combination reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressures by 14 and 7 mmHg respectively.

Effect of metformin on proliferative markers in women with endometrial carcinoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the USA and Western Europe. Surgery is the mainstay of both staging and treatment of EC. Fertility sparing medical therapies are often offered to young women who desire fertility. Metformin has been suggested to be an anti-cancer agent as evidenced by previous studies. It decreases Antigen Ki-67 (Ki-67) proliferation and expression which is associated with proliferative activity of malignant tumors. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the efficacy of metformin on patients with EC. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS for relevant clinical trials and excluded observational studies. The quality appraisal was evaluated according to GRADE, and we assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We conducted the analysis of continuous data using mean difference (MD). We included the following outcomes: Ki-67 index, glucose, insulin, P-S6, body mass index (BMI), C-peptide, Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), leptin, and hemoglobin. Results: Nine studies were eligible for our meta-analysis. We found that compared to the control group, metformin is highly effective in reducing Ki-67 proliferation and expression [MD=-10.14 (-19.10, -1.17)], (p=0.03), P-S6 [MD=-1.82 (-3.17, -0.46)], (p=0.009), plasma glucose level [MD=-1.76 (-4.88, 1.37), p=0.27], and BMI [MD=-1.07 (-1.49, -0.65)], (p<0.001). Conclusion: We conclude that metformin administration is effective in patients with EC. It decreases Ki-67 proliferation and expression, serum glucose, and p-S6 significantly.

Physical and Mental Fatigue in Subjects Recovered from COVID-19 Infection: A Case-Control Study.

PURPOSE: Much effort has been directed toward studying COVID-19 symptoms; however, the post-COVID-19 phase remains mysterious. The aim of this work was to conduct a clinical and neurophysiological evaluation of physical and mental fatigue in COVID-19 long-haulers and to study whether markers of COVID-19 severity are able to predict the likelihood of developing postinfectious fatigue syndrome (PIFS) in such patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This case-control study was conducted on 46 COVID-19 long-haulers who met the criteria for PIFS and 46 recovered COVID-19 subjects without any residuals. Clinical assessment of fatigue was done using a fatigue questionnaire. Repetitive nerve stimulation and single-fiber electromyography were done after excluding neuropathy and myopathy. RESULTS: The median value for physical fatigue was 4 (IQR 2-7), while that for mental fatigue was 2 (IQR 0-3). Each day's increase in the period of COVID-19 illness increased the odds of PIFS in COVID-19 long-haulers 1.104-fold, and each unit increase in ferritin increased the odds of PIFS 1.006-fold. A significant decrement in at least one muscle was observed in 50% of patients. Patients with PIFS had significantly higher mean consecutive difference (MCD) in the extensor digitorum communis than the control group. There were statistically significant positive correlations between MCD values and physical, mental, and total fatigue scores. CONCLUSION: Higher ferritin levels and prolonged COVID-19 infection were independent predictors of PIFS in COVID-19 long-haulers. There was electrophysiological evidence of abnormalities in the peripheral portion of the motor unit in COVID-19 long-haulers with PIFS.

KAP-COVIDGLOBAL: a multinational survey of the levels and determinants of public knowledge, attitudes and practices towards COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The adherence to public health recommendations to control COVID-19 spread is influenced by public knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP). We performed this cross-sectional study to assess the levels and determinants of public KAP towards COVID-19 in a large, multinational sample. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study (survey). SETTING: The questionnaire was distributed to potential respondents via online platforms. PARTICIPANTS: 71 890 individuals from 22 countries. METHODS: We formulated a four-section questionnaire in English, followed by validation and translation into seven languages. The questionnaire was distributed (May to June 2020) and each participant received a score for each KAP section. RESULTS: Overall, the participants had fair knowledge (mean score: 19.24±3.59) and attitudes (3.72±2.31) and good practices (12.12±1.83) regarding COVID-19. About 92% reported moderate to high compliance with national lockdown. However, significant gaps were observed: only 68.2% knew that infected individuals may be asymptomatic; 45.4% believed that antibiotics are an effective treatment; and 55.4% stated that a vaccine has been developed (at the time of data collection). 71.9% believed or were uncertain that COVID-19 is a global conspiracy; 36.8% and 51% were afraid of contacting doctors and Chinese people, respectively. Further, 66.4% reported the pandemic had moderate to high negative effects on their mental health. Female gender, higher education and urban residents had significantly (p≤0.001) higher knowledge and practice scores. Further, we observed significant correlations between all KAP scores. CONCLUSIONS: Although the public have fair/good knowledge and practices regarding COVID-19, significant gaps should be addressed. Future awareness efforts should target less advantaged groups and future studies should develop new strategies to tackle COVID-19 negative mental health effects.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Antibiotic and Antimicrobial Lock Solutions for Prevention of Hemodialysis Catheter-Related Infections.

Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) with hemodialysis catheters are associated with increased mortality, morbidity and pose significant financial burden on healthcare. Antibiotic and antimicrobial locking solutions are effective in reducing risk of CRBSI. From inception to April 2020, we looked for relevant clinical controlled trials throughout the following databases: EBSCO, PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, clinicaltrial.gov, and Google Scholar performing a metanalysis comparing antibiotic and antimicrobial lock solutions to heparin. Twenty-six studies with 4,967 patients reported the incidence of catheter-related bacteremia (CRB). The overall pooled risk ratio (RR) showed that the intervention group was associated with a significantly lower incidence of CRB by 30% compared with heparin (RR = 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.25, 0.36], p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that administration of antibiotic regimens led to a decreased risk of CRB episodes by 28% compared with the heparin group (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.21, 0.37], p < 0.0001). Antimicrobial solutions was associated with reduced risk of CRB by 32% compared with patients of the control group (RR = 0.32, 95% CI [0.25, 0.41], p < 0.0001). A test of subgroup differences was revealed no significant favoring of any of the two interventions. Both antibiotic and antimicrobial solutions are effective in reducing CRBSI.

Amlodipine Compared with Benidipine in the Management of Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Benidipine and amlodipine are two well-known drugs used in hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). AIM: In this systematic review we aimed to compare benidipine and amlodipine in terms of efficacy in the management of hypertensive patients. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and excluded observational studies. Quality appraisal was evaluated according to GRADE and we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We included the following outcomes: Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. Data were pooled as mean differences (MD) with relative 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Eight studies were eligible for our meta-analysis. We found no significant difference between both drugs regarding systolic (MD = - 0.21 [- 1.48, 1.89], (P = 0.81) and diastolic (MD = 0.01[- 0.51, 0.53], (P = 0.97)) blood pressure measurements. The overall heart rate did not differ as well (MD = - 0.03 [- 1.63, 1.57], (P = 0.97)). We found that benidipine was statistically better than amlodipine in terms of eGFR (MD = 1.07 [0.43, 1.71], (P = 0.001)), and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (MD = - 43.41 [- 53.53, - 33.29], (P < 0.00001)). CONCLUSIONS: Finally we conclude that benidipine seems to show more positive and promising results in the management of hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease.