The Impact of COVID-19 on Hand Trauma.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a dramatic impact on individual and societal behaviors, as well as on health care systems. It confers a unique opportunity to examine the relationship among disease, policies, and patterns of activity, as well as their impacts on surgical unit functionality. This study aims to compare the distribution and patterns of injury at a tertiary hand surgery trauma center before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients presenting to the Royal North Shore Hospital hand surgery service in the 5-week period from March 16 to April 21 in 2019 and 2020 was undertaken, forming 2 cohorts for comparison. Demographic, injury, and operative data were collected and compared descriptively using comparative statistics. RESULTS: There were 114 primary operative presentations during the 5-week period in 2020, representing a 27.4% decrease from the 157 presentations during the equivalent period in 2019. There was an increase in the proportion of emergency presentations from 73.9% in 2019 to 85.1% in 2020 (P = .03), with a corresponding decrease in elective presentations during 2020. The incidence of sporting injuries and motor vehicle accidents decreased in 2020, whereas falls and accidents involving knives and tools remained relatively constant. Operating times decreased in 2020, whereas the length of hospital stay remained constant. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic and consequent restrictions of activity have had substantial impacts on the patterns of hand trauma and its management. These insights have implications for staff and resource management during times of social disruption in the future.

Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy for the Treatment of Primary and Metastatic Brain Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) is a minimally invasive treatment option for intracranial tumors that are challenging to treat via traditional methods; however, its safety and efficacy are not yet well validated in the literature. The objectives of the study were to assess the available evidence of the indications and adverse events (AEs) of LITT and 1-year progression-free survival and 1-year overall survival in the treatment of primary and secondary brain tumors. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted through the databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until October 2021. Comparative and descriptive studies, except for case reports, were included in the meta-analysis. Separate analyses by tumor type (high-grade gliomas, including World Health Organization grade 4 astrocytomas [which include glioblastomas] as a specific subgroup; low-grade gliomas; and brain metastases) were conducted. Pooled effect sizes and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were generated via random-effects models. RESULTS: Forty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, yielding 826 patients for meta-analysis. There were 829 lesions in total, of which 361 were classified as high-grade gliomas, 116 as low-grade gliomas, 337 as metastatic brain tumors, and 15 as nonglial tumors. Indications for offering LITT included deep/inaccessible tumor (12 studies), salvage therapy after failed radiosurgery (9), failures of ≥2 treatment options (3), in pediatric patients (4), patient preference (1); indications were nonspecific in 12 studies. Pooled incidence of all (minor or major) procedure-related AEs was 30% (95% CI, 27%-40%) for all tumors. Pooled incidence of neurologic deficits (minor or major) was 16% (12%-22%); postprocedural edema 14% (8%-22%); seizure 6% (4%-9%); hematoma 20% (14%-29%); deep vein thrombosis 19% (11%-30%); hydrocephalus 8% (5%-12%); and wound infection 5% (3%-7%). One-year progression-free survival was 18.6% (11.3%-29.0%) in high-grade gliomas, 16.9% (11.6%-24.0%) among the grade 4 astrocytomas; and 51.2% (36.7%-65.5%) in brain metastases. One-year overall survival was 43.0% (36.0%-50.0%) in high-grade glioma, 45.9% (95% CI, 37.9%-54%) in grade 4 astrocytomas; 93.0% (42.3%-100%) in low-grade gliomas, and 56.3% (47.0%-65.3%) in brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: New neurologic deficits and postprocedural edema were the most reported AEs after LITT, albeit mostly transient. This meta-analysis provides the best statistical estimates of progression and survival outcomes based on the available information. LITT is generally a safe procedure for selected patients, and future well-designed comparative studies on its outcomes versus the current standard of care should be performed.

Influence of ASPECTS and endovascular thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prompt revascularization of the ischemic penumbra following an acute ischemic event (AIS) has established benefit within the literature. However, use of the semi-quantitative Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) to evaluate patient suitability for revascularization has been inconsistent in patient risk stratification and selection. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the available evidence for a clinically valid ASPECTS threshold in assessment of suitability for revascularization following AIS. METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched Medline (Ovid) and Cochrane Central Register of Systematic Reviews databases for studies appraising outcomes of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in relation to a variably-defined preoperative ASPECTS. RESULTS: A total of 13 articles were included. The pooled good outcome proportion after EVT was 41.4% (95% CI 36.4% to 46.6%; p<0.001), with subjective study-specific definitions of favorable and unfavorable subgroup outcomes of 49.7% (95% CI 44.2% to 55.3%; I2=76.5%; p<0.001) and 33.2% (95% CI 28.5% to 38.3%; I2=33.16%), respectively. Objective trichotomization into low (0-4), intermediate (5-7), and high (8-10) subgroups yielded pooled good outcome proportions of 17.1% (95% CI 6.8% to 36.8%; I2=64.24%; p=0.039), 35.7% (95% CI 30.5% to 41.3%; I2=23.11%; p=0.245), and 49.7% (95% CI 44.2% to 55.3%; I2=76.5%; p<0.001) for low, intermediate, and high ASPECTS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A subjectively favorable ASPECTS is associated with significantly better outcomes after EVT than an unfavorable ASPECTS, regardless of the cut-off used. EVT is unlikely to be useful in patients with an objectively low ASPECTS and is likely to be useful for those with high ASPECTS; findings in patients with intermediate ASPECTS were equivocal.