ABSTRACT
Ocular surface squamous neoplasia (OSSN) has different treatment modalities. Although surgical excision has been the gold standard therapeutic option, topical pharmacotherapy agents such as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), interferon alfa-2b (IFN) and mitomycin-C (MMC) are also commonly used. The protocol was registered (CRD42021224961). Comprehensive literature research was carried out to compare topical pharmacotherapy (5-FU or IFN or MMC) to surgical excision regarding clinical success (tumor resolution), recurrence and complications in patients undergoing treatment for OSSN. From 7859 records, 7 articles were included in the qualitative and 4 in the quantitative synthesis. The outcomes of surgical excision and topical pharmacotherapy were comparable in the included articles. There were no significant differences between surgical excision and topical pharmacotherapy regarding the clinical success [odds ratio (OR): 0.785; confidence interval (CI): 0.130-4.736, P = 0.792)] and tumor recurrence (OR: 0.746; CI: 0.213-2.609; P = 0.646). The most common side effect of the different therapeutic options was dry eye. The highest rate of dry eye symptoms was reported after surgical excision (in 59%). Topical pharmacotherapy with all the 3 agents is as effective and well-tolerable as surgical excision in terms of tumor resolution, recurrence rate and side effects in all OSSN patients suggesting similar long-term clinical benefits.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell , Conjunctival Neoplasms , Eye Neoplasms , Administration, Topical , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/pathology , Conjunctival Neoplasms/drug therapy , Conjunctival Neoplasms/pathology , Conjunctival Neoplasms/surgery , Eye Neoplasms/drug therapy , Eye Neoplasms/pathology , Eye Neoplasms/surgery , Fluorouracil , Humans , Interferon alpha-2 , Mitomycin , Retrospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a common disorder affecting muscle function and causing considerable pain for the patient. The literature on the two surgical treatment methods (tenotomy and tenodesis) is controversial; therefore, our aim was to compare the results of these interventions. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis using the following strategy: (P) patients with LHBT pathology, (I) tenodesis, (C) tenotomy, (O) elbow flexion and forearm supination strength, pain assessed on the ten-point Visual Analog Scale (VAS), bicipital cramping pain, Constant, ASES, and SST score, Popeye deformity, and operative time. We included only randomized clinical trials. We searched five databases. During statistical analysis, odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively, using the Bayesian method with random effect model. RESULTS: We included 11 studies in the systematic review, nine of these were eligible for the meta-analysis, containing data about 572 patients (279 in the tenodesis, 293 in the tenotomy group). Our analysis concluded that tenodesis is more beneficial considering 12-month elbow flexion strength (WMD: 3.67 kg; p = 0.006), 12-month forearm supination strength (WMD: 0.36 kg; p = 0.012), and 24-month Popeye deformity (OR: 0.19; p < 0.001), whereas tenotomy was associated with decreased 3-month pain scores on VAS (WMD: 0.99; p < 0.001). We did not find significant difference among the other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Tenodesis yields better results in terms of biceps function and is non-inferior regarding long-term pain, while tenotomy is associated with earlier pain relief.
