Patient Discomfort in Relation to Thyroid Nodule Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Performed with or without Parenteral and/or Topical Anesthetic.

OBJECTIVE: There is much reported variation in the impact of local anesthesia on thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) related discomfort. We compare patients undergoing thyroid FNA with subcutaneous injection or topical anesthetic to no anesthetic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 585 sequential ultrasound guided thyroid FNA procedures in Mayo Clinic. Group 1 (n = 200), no anesthetic; Group 2 (n = 185), subcutaneous injection anesthetic; and Group 3 (n = 200), topical anesthetic. Patient demographics, number of FNA passes, needle gauge, and cytopathology were recorded plus a discomfort score (0 to 10) before and immediately post procedure in all 3 groups and peak discomfort during the FNA in Groups 1 and 2. RESULTS: There were no differences among the 3 groups in age, sex, FNA sufficiency rate, cytopathology, and FNA passes number. There was no significant difference between Groups 1 and 2 in peak discomfort score during the FNA: 0 (45%, 42.2%), 1 to 2 (19%, 24.9%), 3 to 5 (23.5%, 20.5%), 6 to 8 (9.5%, 10.8%), 9 to 10 (3%, 1.6%), respectively. Discomfort score post procedure: 0 (78.5%, 77.8%, 53.5%), 1 to 2 (13%, 13%, 36.5%), 3 to 5 (7%, 7%, 9%), 6 to 8 (1.5%, 2.2%, 1%), 9 to 10 (0%, 0%, 0%) for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. There were no significant differences among the 3 groups for a discomfort score ≥3. CONCLUSION: FNA associated patient discomfort was comparable during and after the procedure regardless of the use of anesthetic or the type utilized. Approximately 90% of patients experienced mild to moderate discomfort during the procedure. And 90% reported no more than a level 2 discomfort post procedure. ABBREVIATIONS: End = endocrinology; FNA = fine-needle aspiration; MCF = Mayo Clinic Florida; MCR = Mayo Clinic Rochester.

Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) Compared to Open Repair in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: An Umbrella Meta-Analysis.

This umbrella meta-analysis aims to investigate two surgical treatments for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA): endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgery repair (OSR). Our study aims to elucidate the 30-day mortality rate, reintervention rates, and aneurysm-related mortality in EVAR versus OSR for AAA.  We conducted a comprehensive assessment of meta-analyses (n = 34 articles) comparing EVAR and OSR for AAA. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol and considered statistical significance at P ≤ 0.05. For the 30-day mortality rate, a pooled odds ratio (pOR) of 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.77, P = 0.0001, and I2 = 98%) indicates that EVAR was associated with a lower risk of mortality compared to OSR. For reintervention rates, a pOR of 1.33 (95% CI = 0.98-1.82, P = 0.11, and I2 = 90%). In aneurysm-related mortality, a pOR of 0.78 (95% CI = 0.63-0.97, P = 0.03, and I2 = 43%). In postoperative rupture of aneurysm, a pOR of 3.28 (95% CI = 2.16-4.98, P < 0.00001, and I2 = 50%). Furthermore, when analyzing systemic complications, only for visceral ischemia, significant results showed lower odds for EVAR, with a pOR of 0.57 (95% CI = 0.40-0.80, P = 0.001, and I2 = 0%) was found.  EVAR is better in terms of short-term mortality rate and aneurysm-related mortality. Furthermore, EVAR is still a safer procedure in elective settings, as the studies we included recruited patients for this setting. However, given the high reintervention rates and recent developments in surgical techniques and materials, more recent data and extensive research are needed.