Single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery versus microsurgical resection for the treatment of vestibular schwannoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vestibular schwannomas are benign tumours for which various treatments are available. We performed a systematic review of prospective controlled trials comparing the patient-relevant benefits and harms of single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (sfSRS) with microsurgical resection (MR) in patients with vestibular schwannoma. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized prospective controlled trials in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and study registries (last search: 09/2021) and also screened reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. Manufacturers were asked to provide unpublished data. Eligible studies investigated at least one patient-relevant outcome. We assessed the risk of bias (high or low) at the study and outcome level. If feasible, meta-analyses were performed. We graded the results into different categories (hint, indication, or proof of greater benefit or harm). RESULTS: We identified three non-randomized prospective controlled trials of generally low quality with evaluable data on 339 patients with unilateral vestibular schwannoma. There was an indication of greater benefit of sfSRS compared with MR for facial palsy (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02-0.21, p < 0.001, 2 studies), hearing function (no pooled estimate available, 2 studies), and length of hospital stay (no pooled estimate available, 2 studies). We found no clinically relevant differences for mortality, vertigo, headaches, tinnitus, balance function, work disability, adverse events, and health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review indicates that sfSRS has greater benefits than MR in patients with unilateral vestibular schwannoma. However, it is unclear whether this conclusion still holds after 2 years, as long-term studies are lacking. It is also unclear whether the effects of sfSRS are similar in patients with bilateral vestibular schwannomas. Long-term prospective studies including patients with this condition would therefore be useful. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The full (German language) protocol and report (Commission No. N20-03) are available on the institute's website: www.iqwig.de/en/projects/n20-03.html.

Negative pressure wound therapy in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a widely used method of wound treatment. We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the patient-relevant benefits and harms of NPWT with standard wound therapy (SWT) in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention. METHODS: We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and study registries (last search: July 2018) and screened reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and health technology assessments. Manufacturers and investigators were asked to provide unpublished data. Eligible studies investigated at least one patient-relevant outcome (e.g. wound closure). We assessed publication bias and, if feasible, performed meta-analyses, grading the results into different categories (hint, indication or proof of a greater benefit or harm). RESULTS: We identified 48 eligible studies of generally low quality with evaluable data for 4315 patients and 30 eligible studies with missing data for at least 1386 patients. Due to potential publication bias (proportion of inaccessible data, 24%), we downgraded our conclusions. A meta-analysis of all wound healing data showed a significant effect in favour of NPWT (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.13, p = 0.008). As further analyses of different definitions of wound closure did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. A meta-analysis of hospital stay (in days) showed a significant difference in favour of NPWT (MD - 4.78, 95% CI - 7.79 to - 1.76, p = 0.005). As further analyses of different definitions of hospital stay/readmission did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. There was neither proof (nor indication nor hint) of greater benefit or harm of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes such as mortality and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, low-quality data indicate a greater benefit of NPWT versus SWT for wound closure in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention. The length of hospital stay is also shortened. The data show no advantages or disadvantages of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes. Publication bias is an important problem in studies on NPWT, underlining that all clinical studies need to be fully reported.