Is Using the Harmonic Scalpel Better than Conventional Hemostasis in Neck Dissection? A Meta-Analysis.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective: The clinical decision to pursue harmonic scalpel (HS) method vs conventional hemostasis to treat head and neck cancers has been arguably predicated on the clinical outcomes observed. This study aims to evaluate the surgical outcomes of neck dissection between both techniques and perform an updated meta-analysis using the available literature. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library through 31st December 2021, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Outcome metrics included operative time and intraoperative blood loss. Secondary outcomes consisted of length of hospital stay, length of drain stay, total drain output, and postoperative complications. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager Version 5.3 (RevMan) software employing the Random Effects Model. Results: We identified 114 articles, out of which 10 randomized control trials (RCTs) analyzing a combined total of 558 patients met the inclusion criteria after title and full-text screening. Meta-analysis shows the group treated with HS had a significantly shorter operative time. [MD = -23.21, 95% CI (-34.30, -12.12) P value <.0001 I2 = 92%] but an insignificant lesser intraoperative blood loss [MD = -61.53, 95% CI (-88.61, -34.45) P < .00001 I2 = 79%]. Conclusions: This study confirms that that HS use in neck dissection yields a reduced operative time and intra operative blood loss relative to conventional hemostasis. Furthermore, our paper shows no superiority of HS method over conventional hemostasis where length of hospital stays, length of drain stays, and postoperative complications are concerned. Future RCTs with high-level evidence may further elucidate the relative effectiveness of HS method over conventional hemostasis in treating head and neck cancers.

Is it safe and effective to administer COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women performing an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central, and SCOPUS from inception to March 2022. Outcomes of interest were incidence of adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal consequences pertaining to safety of the vaccines. Secondarily, we analyzed the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalization for COVID-19, and admission to the I.C.U. for COVID-19 assessing the effectiveness of vaccines. Results were pooled using a random effects model. RESULTS: Ten observational studies (n=326,499) analyzing pregnant women were included. Our results suggest that COVID-19 vaccination prevents infection (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.67; P = <0.00001) and related hospitalizations (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.82; P = 0.006) effectively. It was also observed that vaccination does not change adverse outcomes in pregnancy, namely preeclampsia or eclampsia, stroke (four weeks of delivery), meconium-stained amniotic fluid, spontaneous vaginal delivery, operative vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, and blood transfusions. Furthermore, the vaccine was observed to be protective against neonatal COVID-19 I.C.U. admissions (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.81, 0.90; P = <0.00001). CONCLUSION: Our pooled analysis suggests that the COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women prevents infection effectively and has no adverse outcomes. Future large-scale trials in a randomized fashion are needed to confirm our results.

Comparison of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and thiazolidinediones for management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacologic treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) remains unclear. METHODS: Two reviewers searched PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with NAFLD with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving TZDs vs SGLT2 inhibitors. The primary outcomes were change in alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) and improvement in steatosis and fibrosis. The secondary outcomes were changes in lipid profile, body weight and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Random effects models with continuous outcomes as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used. RESULTS: Five studies (n = 311 NAFLD patients) were included. Patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 156) showed significant decrease in visceral fat area (VFA; WMD 23.45, p < 0.00001) and body weight (WMD 4.22, p < 0.00001) as compared to those treated with TZDs (n = 155). Patients from both groups showed improvement in AST (WMD 1.21, p = 0.40), ALT (WMD -0.46, p = 0.81), GGT (WMD -0.47, p = 0.84), hepatic fibrosis (WMD 0.11, p = 0.52), LDL (WMD 2.19, p = 0.35), HbA1c (WMD -0.16%, p = 0.20), HOMA-IR (WMD: -0.04, p = 0.91) and FPG (WMD -7.37, p = 0.28) which was equivalent and non-significant. CONCLUSION: The improvement in liver enzymes, steatosis and fibrosis caused by SGLT2 inhibitors and TZDs was similar. SGLT2 inhibitors, however, resulted in a significant decrease in VFA and body weight. As weight loss is found to have a positive effect on the resolution of steatosis and fibrosis in NAFLD patients, SGLT2 inhibitors may have the potential to be considered for long-term management, however, further research needs to be conducted to determine the utility of SGLT2 inhibitor class of antidiabetic drugs for effectively treating NAFLD.