Cochlear Implant Outcomes Following Vestibular Schwannoma Resection: Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Hearing loss remains a significant morbidity for patients with vestibular schwannomas (VS). A growing number of reports suggest audibility with cochlear implantation following VS resection; however, there is little consensus on preferred timing and cochlear implant (CI) performance. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search of the Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, and clinicaltrails.gov databases was performed on 9/7/2018. PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies reported CI outcomes in an ear that underwent a VS resection. Untreated VSs, radiated VSs, and CIs in the contralateral ear were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Primary outcomes were daily CI use and attainment of open-set speech. Baseline tumor and patient characteristics were recorded. Subjects were divided into two groups: simultaneous CI placement with VS resection (Group 1) versus delayed CI placement after VS resection (Group 2). DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-nine articles with 93 patients met inclusion criteria. Most studies were poor quality due to their small, retrospective design. Group 1 had 46 patients, of whom 80.4% used their CI on a daily basis and 50.0% achieved open-set speech. Group 2 had 47 patients, of whom 87.2% used their CI on a daily basis and 59.6% achieved open-set speech. Group 2 had more NF2 patients and larger tumors. CI timing did not significantly impact outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Audibility with CI after VS resection is feasible. Timing of CI placement (simultaneous versus delayed) did not significantly affect performance. Overall, 83.9% used their CI on a daily basis and 54.8% achieved open-set speech.

Metabolic and mitochondrial treatments for severe paracetamol poisoning: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol (acetaminophen) remains a leading cause of poisoning in Europe, North America, and Australia. For over four decades, acetylcysteine has been the antidote of choice. However, despite the use of acetylcysteine, some patients who ingest very large doses of paracetamol or who reach hospital late in the course of their poisoning, develop acute liver failure. Some will develop metabolic acidosis indicating mitochondrial toxicity. OBJECTIVE: We review the experimental and clinical data reported with the use of cimetidine, fomepizole, and calmangafodipir in the treatment of paracetamol toxicity to determine if these treatments alone or in combination with acetylcysteine might be of benefit. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline 1946-2020, Embase 1947-2020, Scopus 2004-2020, Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov 1997-2020 for records including the concepts of paracetamol poisoning and cimetidine, fomepizole, calmangafodipir, and acetylcysteine. We included basic science studies in animals and all available study types in humans. We reviewed the reference lists of included articles to search for references missed in the original search. We registered the protocol in PROSPERO. RESULTS: We completed all search strategies on 20 August 2019, 27 January 2020, and 15 June 2020. These produced 6,826 citations. We identified and deleted 2,843 duplicate resulting in a total of 3,856 unique citations. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 89 studies remained. The largest numbers of studies described the past use of cimetidine, and the more recent use of fomepizole.Cimetidine: There is good animal evidence that cimetidine blocks CYP 2E1 with the potential to inhibit the toxic metabolism of paracetamol. Early case reports were inconclusive regarding the benefit to humans in paracetamol poisoning. Two comparative trials found no benefit of cimetidine in paracetamol poisoning, but few patients had severe poisoning.Fomepizole: There is good animal evidence that fomepizole blocks CYP 2E1 with the potential to inhibit the toxic metabolism of paracetamol. There are no comparative trials of fomepizole for acute paracetamol poisoning. Case reports are inconclusive due to multiple other interventions including the use of acetylcysteine in all cases. The benefit of fomepizole as adjunct treatment has not been demonstrated.Calmangafodipir: Calmangafodipir, a drug mimicking superoxide dismutase, has emerged as a potential treatment for severe paracetamol toxicity because the formation of superoxide free radicals appears to explain part of the mitochondrial toxicity of extremely large paracetamol overdoses. Calmangafodipir has reached Phase I/II trial of safety in humans with acute paracetamol overdose. Planning for a Phase III study of efficacy is currently underway. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of patients with acute paracetamol overdose enjoy excellent outcomes with acetylcysteine alone. Although cimetidine and fomepizole inhibit CYP 2E1 in animals, there is insufficient evidence to recommend their use either as a primary treatment or adjunct therapy in paracetamol poisoning. Calmangafodipir remains investigational.

Case Series and Systematic Review of Radiation Outcomes for Endolymphatic Sac Tumors.

OBJECTIVE: Surgery is the primary treatment modality for endolymphatic sac tumors (ELST). Two case examples are presented to highlight some rare instances when radiation therapy may be used. The outcomes following radiation therapy for ELST are controversial. This report systematically reviews those outcomes and compares results between external beam radiation and stereotactic radiosurgery. DATA SOURCE: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines a systematic literature search of the Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrails.gov databases was performed in August 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria and report ELST outcomes following radiation therapy. Additional data on tumor size, previous surgery, radiation modality, and radiation dosing was collected. DATA EXTRACTION: The methodological quality was independently assessed by three reviewers. The included studies were small, heterogeneous case reports with a low level of evidence, and several sources of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: The primary outcome was tumor control following radiation, defined as no growth. A comparative analysis of external beam versus stereotactic radiation was performed. CONCLUSION: Forty-six tumors from 42 patients were independently analyzed. The overall tumor control rate was 67.4%. When analyzing patients in which tumor was present at the time of radiation, external beam radiation controlled 9 of 19 tumors (47.4%) while stereotactic radiosurgery controlled 14 of 18 tumors (77.8%). The effect size of 30.4% favors stereotactic radiosurgery, but the wide confidence interval (-4.4 to 57.4%) limits what conclusions can be drawn. Radiation for ELST remains controversial and more long-term data is needed.