Iatrogenic Hypoparathyroidism Development After Thyroidectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic hypoparathyroidism is a common cause of postthyroidectomy hypocalcaemia. It has varying incidence rates after neck surgery in Saudi Arabia, ranging from 0.07% to 65.30%. Hypoparathyroidism can manifest with a spectrum of symptoms, ranging from mild to severe and life-threatening. This study aimed to assess the rate and predictors of iatrogenic hypoparathyroidism after thyroid surgery and its natural course. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a data collection form to extract patient information from the electronic healthcare system (Best-Care) for patients treated from 2017 to 2022. Patients' demographics, surgical specifics and biochemical profiles were recorded for subsequent analysis. RESULTS: Among the 343 patients who underwent thyroidectomy, 130 (37.9%) developed hypoparathyroidism, primarily within the first day after surgery. Calcium or vitamin D supplementation before surgery did not significantly influence hypoparathyroidism development. Notably, extensive combined lymph node dissection was significantly associated with postoperative hypoparathyroidism development (p = 0.0004). More patients who underwent central and lateral lymph node dissection (n = 19, 79.17%) developed hypoparathyroidism than patients who underwent central (n = 18, 40.91%) or lateral (n = 8, 38.10%) dissection alone. Permanent hypoparathyroidism was observed in 40 patients (11.66%). CONCLUSION: This study revealed a high incidence of iatrogenic hypoparathyroidism and high rates of permanent hypoparathyroidism. Further research is warranted to better comprehend the risk factors and optimise management strategies for iatrogenic hypoparathyroidism. Overall, our findings emphasise the need for vigilant monitoring and effective management of patients undergoing thyroidectomy and the significance of postoperative replacement therapies.

Phacoemulsification versus Laser Peripheral Iridotomy for Treating Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma (PACG), is caused by narrowing the iridocorneal angle and increases the risk of blockage in the trabecular meshwork. Phacoemulsification and laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) effectively control IOP elevation and widen the angle. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared Phacoemulsification and LPI Effectiveness for PACG. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared Phacoemulsification and LPI for individuals with PACG. We sought to evaluate the following outcomes: mean IOP, number of glaucoma medications, visual acuity (VA), visual field (VF) progression, peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS), Shaffer gonioscopy grading, central corneal thickness (CCT), central endothelial cell density (CECD), and poor response to surgery. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to represent continuous outcomes, while the risk ratio (RR) was used to represent dichotomous outcomes. Results: 5 RCTs that enrolled 917 participants were deemed eligible. The phacoemulsification group showed statistically significance lower mean CCT and CECD and lower risk of poor response to surgery compared to LPI (SMD = -1.10; 95% -1.50, -0.70; P<0.001, SMD -366.12; 95% -652.59, -79.65; P=0.01, and RR 0.35; 95% 0.23, 0.54; P<0.001 respectively). There were no significant improvement in IOP and number of medications between both groups (SMD = -0.74; 95% CI = -2.26, 0.78; P=0.34, and SMD -17.58; 95% CI = -50.28, 15.12; P=0.29 respectively). Finally, there were also no significant differences in VA, VF progression, PAS, and mean Shaffer gonioscopy grading between both groups. Conclusion: Phacoemulsification showed statistically significant lower mean corneal thickness, central endothelial cell density, and lower risk of poor response to surgery compared to LPI. However, there were no significant differences in mean IOP, number of medications, VA, VF progression, PAS, and mean Shaffer gonioscopy grading between Phacoemulsification and LPI.

Intravitreal Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injection for Retinopathy of Prematurity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Laser photocoagulation and/or intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections constitute the current standard treatment for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF monotherapy for ROP treatment using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Methods: We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intravitreal anti-VEGF monotherapy (e.g., bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept, and pegaptanib) with laser photocoagulation in preterm infants with ROP. We evaluated the rates of recurrence, treatment switching, retreatment, adverse events, and mortality. The risk ratio (RR) was used to represent dichotomous outcomes. Data were pooled using the inverse variance weighting method. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials. Results: Seven RCTs (n = 579; 1,158 eyes) were deemed eligible. Three RCTs had an overall low risk of bias, three had some concerns, and one had an overall high risk of bias. The pooled effect estimate showed a statistically significant reduction in adverse events in favor of anti-VEGF monotherapy [RR = 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07-0.44]. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference between the anti-VEGF and laser groups in terms of recurrence rate (RR = 1.56, 95% CI 0.23-10.54), treatment switching (RR = 2.92, 95% CI 0.40-21.05), retreatment (RR = 1.56, 95% CI 0.35-6.96), and mortality rate (RR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.48-3.41). Conclusion: Overall, intravitreal anti-VEGF monotherapy was associated with fewer adverse events than laser therapy, rated as high quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria. Pooled analysis revealed no significant difference between the two arms with respect to the recurrence rate, treatment switching, retreatment, and mortality rate, with quality of evidence ranging from moderate to very low as per the GRADE approach. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails], identifier [CRD42021270077].