Resective, Ablative and Radiosurgical Interventions for Drug Resistant Mesial Temporal Lobe Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes.

Objectives: One-third of individuals with focal epilepsy do not achieve seizure freedom despite best medical therapy. Mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE) is the most common form of drug resistant focal epilepsy. Surgery may lead to long-term seizure remission if the epileptogenic zone can be defined and safely removed or disconnected. We compare published outcomes following open surgical techniques, radiosurgery (SRS), laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) and radiofrequency ablation (RF-TC). Methods: PRISMA systematic review was performed through structured searches of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies of MTLE reporting seizure-free outcomes in ≥10 patients with ≥12 months follow-up. Due to variability in open surgical approaches, only comparative studies were included to minimize the risk of bias. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate effects sizes and a pooled estimate of the probability of seizure freedom per person-year. A mixed effects linear regression model was performed to compare effect sizes between interventions. Results: From 1,801 screened articles, 41 articles were included in the quantitative analysis. Open surgery included anterior temporal lobe resection as well as transcortical and trans-sylvian selective amygdalohippocampectomy. The pooled seizure-free rate per person-year was 0.72 (95% CI 0.66-0.79) with trans-sylvian selective amygdalohippocampectomy, 0.59 (95% CI 0.53-0.65) with LITT, 0.70 (95% CI 0.64-0.77) with anterior temporal lobe resection, 0.60 (95% CI 0.49-0.73) with transcortical selective amygdalohippocampectomy, 0.38 (95% CI 0.14-1.00) with RF-TC and 0.50 (95% CI 0.34-0.73) with SRS. Follow up duration and study sizes were limited with LITT and RF-TC. A mixed-effects linear regression model suggests significant differences between interventions, with LITT, ATLR and SAH demonstrating the largest effects estimates and RF-TC the lowest. Conclusions: Overall, novel "minimally invasive" approaches are still comparatively less efficacious than open surgery. LITT shows promising seizure effectiveness, however follow-up durations are shorter for minimally invasive approaches so the durability of the outcomes cannot yet be assessed. Secondary outcome measures such as Neurological complications, neuropsychological outcome and interventional morbidity are poorly reported but are important considerations when deciding on first-line treatments.

Printing in a Pandemic: 3D printing solutions for healthcare during COVID-19. A Protocol for a PRISMA systematic review.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic had an unprecedented global socioeconomic impact. Responses to pandemics include strategies to accumulate vast stockpiles of vital medical equipment. In such times of desperation, 3D-printing could be a life-saving alternative. Methods: We undertook a PRISMA systematic review of 3D printing solutions in response to COVID-19 utilising the PICO methodology. The objectives were to identify the uses of 3D printing during the COVID-19 pandemic, determine the extent of preclinical testing, comparison to commercial alternatives, presence of regulatory approvals and replicability regarding the description of the printing parameters and the availability of the print file. Results: Literature searches of MEDLINE (OVID interface)/ PubMed identified 601 studies. Of these, 10 studies fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Reported uses of 3D printing included personal protective equipment (PPE), nasopharyngeal swabs and adjunctive anaesthetic equipment. Few studies undertook formal safety and efficacy testing before clinical use with only one study comparing to the commercial equivalent. Six articles made their model print files available for wider use. Conclusion: We describe a protocol for a systematic review of 3D-printed healthcare solutions in response to COVID-19. This remains a viable method of producing vital healthcare equipment when supply chains are exhausted. We hope that this will serve as a summary of innovative 3D-printed solutions during the peak of the pandemic and also highlight concerns and omissions regarding safety and efficacy testing that should be addressed urgently in preparation for a subsequent resurgences and future pandemics.