Evaluation of Different Surgical Techniques for Revision Cubital Tunnel Release: A Meta-Analysis of Patient-Reported Symptoms.

PURPOSE: Controversy exists regarding the best option for revision surgery in refractory cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS). The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of revision surgery and determine the optimal surgical approach for patients requiring revision surgery for CuTS. METHODS: A literature search was conducted. Characteristics of the included studies were summarized descriptively. The risk ratio between patient-reported preoperative and postoperative outcomes relating to pain, motor, and sensory deficits was calculated. A meta-regression analysis was performed to evaluate the postoperative symptom improvements based on the type of secondary surgery. Random-effects meta-analysis and descriptive statistics were used when appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 471 patients were evaluated in 20 studies. In total, 254 (53.9%) male and 217 (46.1%) female patients, with an average age of 49.2 ± 14.1 years, were included in this study. Pain was the most common symptom (n = 346, 81.6%), followed by sensory and motor dysfunction in 342 (80.6%) and 223 (52.6%) patients, respectively. Meta-analysis comparing preoperative and postoperative symptoms between patients who had submuscular transposition (SMT), subcutaneous transposition (SCT), and neurolysis showed that a significant subgroup difference exists between the types of revision surgery in sensory and motor improvements. Meta-regression showed that SMT was associated with better outcomes compared with SCT in motor and sensory improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Revision surgery for CuTS can be useful for addressing recurrent and persistent symptoms. Compared with neurolysis and SCT, SMT seems to be the superior option for revision surgery, demonstrating substantial improvement in all symptom domains. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Racial and Ethnic Demographic Reporting in Phase 2 Proton Therapy Clinical Trials: A Review.

Purpose: Equitable inclusion of racial and ethnic participation in clinical trials is crucial to improving disparities in health care, especially for historically marginalized populations. Our study aims to describe the racial and ethnic demographics of patients enrolled in published phase 2 clinical trials involving proton therapy in the United States. Materials and Methods: Published manuscripts were identified in PubMed, Embase, World of Science, and Cochrane. Phase 2 trials evaluating proton therapy for US patients were included. For each article in the study, data were collected comprising authors, title, and publication year, and clinical trial numbers were verified. Additional data included tumor site, primary institution, sample size, reported race/ethnicity, and raw number/percentile of race/ethnicity. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used. Results: Overall, 970 titles were identified; 636 remained after duplicate screening, and 75 full-text articles were assessed. We identified 38 eligible manuscripts for inclusion comprising 2648 patients. Only 15 (39%) of the publications reported race/ethnicity. Of these, 8 (21%) and 10 (26%) documented Hispanic or Black trial participants, respectively; however, only 6 (16%) documented trial participation for both Hispanic and Black patients. Of the 1409 patients with a documented race/ethnicity, 89.0% (n = 1254) were non-Hispanic white, 5.3% (n = 75) were Black, and 2.2% (n = 31) were Hispanic. Other and unknown race/ethnicity comprised the remaining patients (3.5%; n = 49). Conclusion: We identified underreporting of demographic data in published phase 2 proton therapy trials, which unfortunately mirrored underreporting for cancer drug clinical trials. We also noted dramatic Black and Hispanic patient underrepresentation across the trials in which race and ethnicity are reported. Findings highlight the urgent need to identify and address barriers to proton therapy trials for Black and Hispanic patients ensuring clinical trials in radiation oncology are representative of the patients seen in clinical practice.

Characteristics and Treatment of Patients Diagnosed With Paradoxical Adipose Hyperplasia After Cryolipolysis: A Case Series and Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Paradoxical adipose hyperplasia (PAH), a rare side effect of CoolSculpting (cryolipolysis), is characterized by fatty enlargement of the treatment area occurring months after the procedure. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to report a retrospective case series of patients diagnosed with PAH at the authors' institution, increase the collective understanding of this complication and subsequent management, and raise the question of who should ethically perform cryolipolysis. METHODS: All participants diagnosed with PAH by a plastic surgeon at a large academic medical center were identified. Demographic information, medical history, procedure details, time to PAH diagnosis, and corrective surgical intervention details were collected. Mean duration of time from cryolipolysis treatment to diagnosis of PAH was calculated, along with other descriptive statistics. A scoping review of all PAH literature published in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was also conducted. RESULTS: Four patients diagnosed with PAH after cryolipolysis were identified for inclusion in this study. The calculated incidence of PAH at our center was 0.67%. All patients requested therapy for PAH and subsequently underwent either liposuction, abdominoplasty, or both. The mean duration of in-person follow-up time after final surgical treatment of PAH was 13.8 + 19.8 months (range, 2.8-43.5). Fortunately, no patients showed signs of PAH recurrence, and 3 out of 4 patients did not show signs of residual deformity. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this patient cohort and scoping review provide evidence that although revisions may be required, conventional body contouring methods, not in the armamentarium of non-plastic surgeon practitioners, effectively alleviated PAH.

Minimally invasive interval cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

The introduction of minimally invasive surgery in other gynecologic cancers has shown benefits with similar oncologic outcomes. However, the biology and complexity of surgery for ovarian cancer may preclude this approach for ovarian cancer patients. Our objective is to assess feasibility to achieve complete cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIIC-IV ovarian cancer patients via minimally invasive surgery. Our data sources include PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Biosis, Clinicaltrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model with DerSimonian and Laird estimator for the amount of heterogeneity to estimate the pooled outcomes. A funnel plot and Egger's regression test were used to test publication bias. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. There were 6 studies (3 prospective, 3 retrospective) that met the criteria for meta-analysis with a total of 3231 patients, 567 were in the minimally invasive group and 2664 in the laparotomy group. Both groups were similar in stage and serous histology. Complete cytoreductive surgery was achieved in 74.50% (95% CI 40.41-97.65%) and 53.10% (95% CI 4.88-97.75%) of patients in the minimally invasive and laparotomy groups, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference between these 2 pooled proportions (p = 0.52). Three studies compared minimally invasive surgery vs laparotomy. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in obtaining complete cytoreductive surgery [OR = 0.90 (95% CI 0.70-1.16; p = 0.43)]. A symmetrical funnel plot indicated no publication bias. The pooled proportion for grade > 2 postoperative complications was not significant among the laparoscopy group [3.11% (95% CI 0.00-10.24%; p = 0.15)]. Complete cytoreductive surgery appears feasible and safe with minimally invasive surgery in selected advanced ovarian cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.