Occurrence and risk factors for post-stroke delirium: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Delirium is a significant health concern in acute stroke patients. We aim to systematically summarize existing evidence to conduct a meta-analysis to quantify the occurrence and risk factors for delirium after acute stroke. METHOD: PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from inception to Feb. 2023 for prospective observational studies that reported the incidence or prevalence of post-stroke delirium and/or evaluated potential risk factors. The search strategy was created using controlled vocabulary terms and text words for stroke and delirium. We performed a meta-analysis of the estimates for occurrence and risk factors using random-effects models. Meta-regression and subgroup meta-analyses were conducted to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Study quality and quality of evidence were assessed using the customized Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and GRADE, respectively. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies that enrolled 12383 patients were included. The pooled occurrence rate of post-stroke delirium was 24.4 % (95 %CI, 20.4 %-28.9 %, I2=96.2 %). The pooled occurrence of hyperactive, hypoactive, and mixed delirium was 8.5 %, 5.7 % and 5.0 %, respectively. Study location, delirium assessment method and stroke type independently affected the heterogeneity of the pooled estimate of delirium. Statistically significant risk factors were older age, low education level, cigarette smoking, alcohol drinking, atrial fibrillation, lower ADL level, higher pre-stroke mRS score, premorbid cognitive impairment or dementia, aphasia, total anterior circulation impairment, higher National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score and infection. CONCLUSIONS: Delirium affected 1 in 4 acute stroke patients, although reported rates may depend on assessment method and stroke type. Timely prevention, recognition and intervention require prioritizing patients with dominant risk factors.

Pure and non-pure meningioangiomatosis of 36 Chinese patients: an analysis of clinical presentation, diagnosis, histopathology and prognosis.

Meningioangiomatosis (MA) is a disease that is extremely rarely reported. Sporadic MA is occasionally combined with meningioma or other lesions (identified as non-pure MA). This retrospective study investigated the difference between pure MA and non-pure MA by exploring clinical manifestations, histopathology characteristics, and outcomes of MA after surgery. We reviewed the medical records of 36 histopathologically confirmed MA patients (18 pure MA and 18 non-pure MA) who received surgery at our institution between 2012 and 2021. We compared differences in demographic, clinical, imaging, pathological features, and surgical outcomes between pure MA and non-pure MA through descriptive statistics. Compared to non-pure MA, pure MA presented with a more prominent male predilection (5:1 vs. 1.57:1, P = 0.264), a higher seizure incidence (83.3% vs 50.0%, P = 0.038), a more seizure type of GTCS (14/15 vs 5/9, P = 0.047), a less prominent enhancement on MRI (27.8% vs 88.9%, P < 0.001) and a preference of temporal and frontal lobe (100% vs 44.4%, P < 0.001). The differences in clinical characteristics between pure MA and non-pure MA demonstrate their disparate biological natures. Pure MA seems to be a non-neoplastic lesion, while non-pure MA is commonly combined with meningioma, which is a neoplastic lesion. A correct differential diagnosis can be achieved via a triad of the type of seizure, the location of lesion and the radiological presentation. MA is curable and the prognosis is excellent as most patients are free of seizure and recurrence after surgical treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We critically evaluated the efficacy and safety of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the Web of Science Core Collection, Chinese Biomedical Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Digital Periodicals, and Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals were searched from their inception to February 2021. Randomized controlled trials and retrospective or prospective cohort studies (CSs) comparing OLIF and TLIF for DLS were included. A meta-analysis was conducted, if possible. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in the statistical analysis. The pooled results of the CSs showed no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in pain relief at 3 or 6 months of follow-up and functional improvement at 1 or 3 months of follow-up in DLS patients between those who had undergone OLIF versus TLIF. The pooled results of the CSs showed that OLIF could significantly improve the degree of lumbar lordosis, foraminal height, and disc height and decrease the intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, operative duration, bed rest time, and hospital length of stay (P < 0.05) compared with TLIF. The incidence of adverse events was not significantly different statistically between OLIF and TLIF. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study suggest that pain relief and functional improvement were not significantly different between OLIF and TLIF. Nevertheless, the use of OLIF might improve radiological outcomes and reduce intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, operative duration, bed rest duration, and hospital length of stay compared with TLIF. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trials are still required to confirm these findings.