Intervention modalities for brain fog caused by long-COVID: systematic review of the literature.

Individuals suffering from long-COVID can present with "brain fog", which is characterized by a range of cognitive impairments, such as confusion, short-term memory loss, and difficulty concentrating. To date, several potential interventions for brain fog have been considered. Notably, no systematic review has comprehensively discussed the impact of each intervention type on brain fog symptoms. We included studies on adult (aged > 18 years) individuals with proven long- COVID brain-fog symptoms from PubMed, MEDLINE, Central, Scopus, and Embase. A search limit was set for articles published between 01/2020 and 31/12/2023. We excluded studies lacking an objective assessment of brain fog symptoms and patients with preexisting neurological diseases that affected cognition before COVID-19 infection. This review provided relevant information from 17 studies. The rehabilitation studies utilized diverse approaches, leading to a range of outcomes in terms of the effectiveness of the interventions. Six studies described noninvasive brain stimulation, and all showed improvement in cognitive ability. Three studies described hyperbaric oxygen therapy, all of which showed improvements in cognitive assessment tests and brain perfusion. Two studies showed that the use of Palmitoylethanolamide and Luteolin (PEA-LUT) improved cognitive impairment. Noninvasive brain stimulation and hyperbaric oxygen therapy showed promising results in the treatment of brain fog symptoms caused by long-COVID, with improved perfusion and cortical excitability. Furthermore, both rehabilitation strategies and PEA-LUT administration have been associated with improvements in symptoms of brain fog. Future studies should explore combinations of interventions and include longer follow-up periods to assess the long-term effects of these treatments.

Comparative effectiveness of peroneus longus tendon (PLT) autografts versus hamstring tendon (HT) autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comprehensive systematic review and meta analysis.

The hamstring tendon (HT) autograft is currently the most widely utilised autograft option for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, recent studies endorse the peroneus longus tendon (PLT) autograft as a viable alternative. To evaluate this, we systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy of PLT against HT autografts. Our search encompassed Cochrane, Embase, OVID, PubMed, and Scopus databases for RCTs comparing outcomes of PLT and HT autografts in ACL reconstruction. Primary outcomes included Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, while secondary outcomes involved American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, graft diameters and donor-site complications. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration) and heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. 683 patients from 6 RCTs were included, with 338 (49.5%) patients treated with PLT autografts. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 30 months. Despite lower preoperative Lysholm scores in the PLT group, no significant differences were observed at 6 and 12 months. Although preoperative and 6-month IKDC scores were lower in the PLT group, no significant differences were found at 12 and 24 months. AOFAS scores showed no significant preoperative difference, but slightly lower scores were noted in the PLT group at 12 or 24 months. There was no significant difference in graft diameter, while donor-site complications were fewer in the PLT group. In summary, the PLT autograft is a promising and non-inferior alternative to the HT autograft, demonstrating equivalent outcomes in patient-reported knee and ankle metrics, comparable graft diameters and fewer donor-site complications.

Short Versus Regular Periods of Cast Immobilization for Distal Radial Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The current research on the recommended durations for cast immobilization in adults with distal radial fractures (DRFs) lacks a clear consensus or definitive conclusion. The standard practice involves casting immobilization for five to six weeks. The debate revolves around the potential benefits of shorter periods (three to four weeks) without compromising patient outcomes. While previous research has delved into this subject through systematic reviews, our study stands out by conducting a meta-analysis, aiming for a more precise understanding of whether short or regular cast immobilization duration proves more effective for treating DRFs. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies. The focus was on comparing the outcomes of DRFs between short (three to four weeks) and regular (five to six weeks) periods of cast immobilization. The evaluated parameters include the shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (quick (q) DASH); patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE); visual analog scale (VAS) score after cast removal; total complications; and the occurrence of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Data synthesis employed the random-effects models, presenting the results as mean difference (MD) and weighted odds ratio (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We included three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 252 patients, of whom 125 (49.6%) were immobilized in a cast for three to four weeks. The average age of participants was 61.20 years, and the follow-up duration was one year. The QDASH scores were significantly lower at 12 weeks (MD -6.72; 95% CI -10.76 to -2.69; p = 0.001), six months (MD -4.46; 95% CI -7.42 to -1.50; p = 0.003), and one year (MD -4.89; 95% CI -7.45 to -2.33; p = 0.0002) in patients treated with short periods compared to those with regular periods. The PRWE scores at six months (MD -2.33; 95% CI -8.10 to 3.43; p=0.43) did not significantly differ between groups. Also, the PRWE scores were significantly lower at one year (MD -4.93; 95% CI -9.03 to -0.82; p = 0.02) in the shorter cast-immobilization-period group. There were no significant differences in VAS score after cast removal, total complications, or CRPS. The meta-analysis of RCTs on DRFs reveals that shorter periods of cast immobilization lead to better patient-reported functional outcomes (qDASH and PRWE). This suggests a potential benefit of reducing the immobilization duration for DRF patients, offering clinicians valuable insights for improved patient care and informed decision-making in clinical practice.