-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Epilepsy is a central nervous system disorder (neurological disorder). Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal cortical nerve cell electrical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epilepsy is a central nervous system disorder (neurological disorder). Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal cortical nerve cell electrical activity in the brain. Despite the development of more than 10 new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) since the early 2000s, approximately a third of people with epilepsy remain resistant to pharmacotherapy, often requiring treatment with a combination of AEDs. In this review, we summarised the current evidence regarding rufinamide, a novel anticonvulsant medication, which, as a triazole derivative, is structurally unrelated to any other currently used anticonvulsant medication, when used as an add-on treatment for refractory epilepsy. In January 2009, rufinamide was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of children four years of age and older with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. It is also approved as an add-on treatment for adults and adolescents with focal seizures.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment in people with refractory epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
On 2 October 2017, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted the manufacturers of rufinamide and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on trials of rufinamide, recruiting people (of any age or gender) with refractory epilepsy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcomes); seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; and adverse effects (secondary outcomes). Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT) and we presented summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We evaluated dose response in regression models. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach, which we presented in a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
The review included six trials, representing 1759 participants. Four trials (1563 participants) included people with uncontrolled focal seizures. Two trials (196 participants) included established Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Overall, the age of the adults ranged from 18 to 80 years and the age of the infants ranged from four to 16 years. Baseline phase ranged from 28 to 56 days and double-blind phases from 84 to 96 days. Five of the six included trials described adequate methods of concealment of randomisation and only three described adequate blinding. All analyses were by ITT. Overall, five studies were at low risk of bias, and one had unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturer of rufinamide, and therefore, were at high risk of funding bias.The overall RR for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.79 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.22; 6 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence) indicating that rufinamide (plus conventional AED) was significantly more effective than placebo (plus conventional AED) in reducing seizure frequency by at least 50%, when added to conventionally used AEDs in people with refractory focal epilepsy. The overall RR for treatment withdrawal (for any reason and due to AED) was 1.83 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.31; 6 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence) showing that rufinamide was significantly more likely to be withdrawn than placebo. In respect of adverse effects, most were significantly more likely to occur in the rufinamide-treated group. The adverse events significantly associated with rufinamide were: headache, dizziness, somnolence, vomiting, nausea, fatigue and diplopia. The RRs of these adverse effects were: headache 1.36 (95% Cl 1.08 to 1.69; 3 RCTs; high-quality evidence); dizziness 2.52 (95% Cl 1.90 to 3.34; 3 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence); somnolence 1.94 (95% Cl 1.44 to 2.61; 6 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence); vomiting 2.95 (95% Cl 1.80 to 4.82; 4 RCTs; low-quality evidence); nausea 1.87 (95% Cl 1.33 to 2.64; 3 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence); fatigue 1.46 (95% Cl 1.08 to 1.97; 3 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence); and diplopia 4.60 (95% Cl 2.53 to 8.38; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence). There was no important heterogeneity between studies for any of the outcomes. Overall, we assessed the evidence as moderate to low quality, due to potential risk of bias from some studies contributing to the analysis and wide CIs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment was effective in reducing seizure frequency. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for the long-term use of rufinamide. In the short term, rufinamide as an add-on was associated with several adverse events. This review focused on the use of rufinamide in drug-resistant focal epilepsy and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of rufinamide when used as monotherapy.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anticonvulsants; Child; Child, Preschool; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Triazoles
PubMed: 29691835
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011772.pub2 -
The better surgical timing and approach for orbital fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of Translational Medicine May 2022A large number of empirical studies on the surgical timing and approach of orbital fracture have been published, but which surgical timing and approach is better is...
BACKGROUND
A large number of empirical studies on the surgical timing and approach of orbital fracture have been published, but which surgical timing and approach is better is still a dispute. We use a systematic review and meta-analysis to solve this problem.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search in the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database, Embase, and Web of Science for relevant literature. The search terms included those concerning or describing orbital fracture, timing, and approach, which are based on population, intervention, control, outcome, and study (PICOS) framework. The statistical software packages RevMan 5.4 and Stata 14.0 were used for data analysis. We sought to evaluate postoperative complications, and results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Forest plots, sensitivity analysis, funnel plots, Egger's test, and risk bias analysis were also performed on the included articles by using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS).
RESULTS
A total of 7 trials involving 1,283 patients compared the surgical timing of ≤14 days versus >14 days, and another 14 trials involving 1,768 patients compared the surgical strategy of transconjunctival approach (TCA) with that of subciliary approach (SCA) for orbital fracture. The quality of all articles was higher than 7 points, which means all articles were at low risk of bias. Surgery conducted within 14 days significantly reduced the incidence of diplopia (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.83, P=0.005) and enophthalmos (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.83, P=0.02); TCA had a significantly lower incidence of ectropion (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.38, P<0.00001), scleral show (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.38, P<0.00001), and visible scar (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.65, P=0.33) compared to SCA, but had a significantly higher incidence of entropion (OR: 5.41, 95% CI: 1.83 to 15.96, P=0.002). There was no significant publication bias among our included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The operation in ≤14 days is better than that in >14 days. However, regarding the choice of surgical approach, TCA and SCA have their advantages and disadvantages, the exploration of which requires further research.
PubMed: 35722414
DOI: 10.21037/atm-22-1465 -
Medicine Oct 2023Myasthenia Gravis (MG), a chronic neuromuscular junction disorder, emerged as one of the serious side effects of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. We...
BACKGROUNDS
Myasthenia Gravis (MG), a chronic neuromuscular junction disorder, emerged as one of the serious side effects of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. We aimed to summarize the findings of studies on the clinical features and outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination-associated MG.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search on 3 databases, Medline, Embase, and Scopus, using the query "COVID-19 vaccine" and "Myasthenia Gravis." Patients' data, including clinical data, MG subtype, vaccine type, and vaccine dose number, were extracted from the eligible studies.
RESULTS
A total of 20 COVID-19 vaccination-related MGs have been reported worldwide. The median (interquartile range) age was 64 (51, 75) years; 85% (17/20) of them were male, and 70% (14/20) of patients had received messenger RNA-based vaccines. The most common symptoms, in order of frequency, were binocular diplopia (8/11) and ptosis (4/11); the median (interquartile range) time from vaccine to MG symptoms was 6 (2, 7.5) days. Repetitive nerve stimulation showed abnormal decrement in 85% (11/13) of patients, and all 4 patients getting single-fiber electromyography showed an abnormal finding. Nine out of twelve patients with data on clinical outcomes experienced partial/complete improvement of symptoms within 1 month.
CONCLUSION
MG cases after the COVID-19 vaccine are more likely to occur among males and adults older than 50 years. Our pooled cohort data suggest MG symptoms appear within 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine. The presenting symptoms in MG cases associated with COVID-19 vaccine are possibly similar to non-vaccination related MGs. Most patients are expected to experience partial/complete improvement within 1 month.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Male; Female; COVID-19 Vaccines; COVID-19; Myasthenia Gravis; Diplopia; Vaccines; Vaccination
PubMed: 37800781
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034890 -
Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology :... 2023The traditional standard of care for Graves' ophthalmopathy (GO) is glucocorticoid therapy, which is associated with many long-term side effects. The aim of this...
PURPOSE
The traditional standard of care for Graves' ophthalmopathy (GO) is glucocorticoid therapy, which is associated with many long-term side effects. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the traditional therapy to novel monoclonal antibodies (e.g. rituximab [RTX], teprotumumab, and tocilizumab [TCZ]).
METHODS
We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different monoclonal antibodies (e.g. RTX, teprotumumab, and TCZ) with glucocorticoids or placebo in patients with GO. We evaluated the clinical activity score (CAS), proptosis, subjective diplopia using the Gorman score, quality of life (QoT), adverse events, change in lid fissure, NOSPECS score, and TSH receptor antibody (TRAb) levels. The odds ratio (OR) was used to represent dichotomous outcomes. The continuous outcomes were represented as standardized mean difference (SMD). Data were pooled using the inverse variance weighting method. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials.
RESULTS
Six ( = 571) RCTs were deemed eligible. The different monoclonal antibodies were significantly more efficacious than glucocorticoid/placebo in terms of reduction in CAS (SMD = -1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.91--0.97, < 0.00001, = 74%), change in proptosis (SMD = -4.96, 95% CI: -8.02--1.89, = 0.002, = 99%), QoL (SMD = 2.64, 95% CI: 0.50-4.79, = 0.02, = 97%), and Gorman score for diplopia (OR = 3.42, 95% CI: 1.62-7.22, = 0.001, = 8%). However, monoclonal antibodies have shown higher rates of adverse events (OR = 2.91, 95% CI: 1.12-7.56, = 0.03, = 62%). No significant difference was found with respect to lid fissure, NOSPECS, and TRAb levels.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis demonstrated that monoclonal antibodies were associated with more favorable clinical outcomes than standard steroid therapy or placebo, especially with regard to CAS, change in proptosis, diplopia, and QoL, with teprotumumab being superior. In addition, only minor safety concerns were identified with monoclonal antibodies though less worrisome than using traditional steroids.
PubMed: 37492211
DOI: 10.4103/sjopt.sjopt_176_22 -
Brain Sciences Oct 2022Introduction. Pituitary adenomas have the potential to infiltrate the dura mater, skull, and the venous sinuses. Tumor extension into the cavernous sinus is often... (Review)
Review
Introduction. Pituitary adenomas have the potential to infiltrate the dura mater, skull, and the venous sinuses. Tumor extension into the cavernous sinus is often observed in pituitary adenomas and techniques and results of surgery in this region are vastly discussed in the literature. Infiltration of parasellar dura and its impact for pituitary surgery outcomes is significantly less studied but recent studies have suggested a role of endoscopic resection of the medial wall of the cavernous sinus, in selected cases. In this study, we discuss the techniques and outcomes of recently proposed techniques for selective resection of the medial wall of the cavernous sinus in endoscopic pituitary surgery. Methods. We performed a systematic review of the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and protocol and a total of 4 studies with 106 patients that underwent an endoscopic approach for resection of pituitary tumors with resection of medial wall from cavernous sinus were included. Clinical and radiological data were extracted (sex, mean age, Knosp, prior surgery, tumor size and type, complication rate, and remission) and a meta-analysis using the RevMan 5.4 software was performed. Results. A total of 5 studies with 208 patients were included in this analysis. The mean age of the study population was 48.87 years (range 25−82) with a female/male ratio of 1:1.36. Majority of the patients had Knosp Grade 1 (n = 77, 37.02%) and Grade 2 (n = 53, 25.48%). The complication rate was 4.81% (n = 33/106) and the most common complication observed was a new transient CN dysfunction and diplopia. Early disease remission was observed in 94.69% of the patients (n = 196/207). The prevalence rate of CS medial wall invasion varied from 10.4 % up to 36.7%. This invasion rate increased in frequency with higher Knosp Grade. The forest plot of persistent disease vs. remission in this surgery approach showed a p < 0.00001 and heterogeneity (I^2 = 0%). Discussion. Techniques to achieve resection of the medial wall of the cavernous sinus via the endoscopic endonasal approach include the “anterior to posterior” technique (opening of the anterior wall of the cavernous sinus) and the “medial to lateral” technique (opening of the inferior intercavernous sinus and). Although potentially related with improved endocrinological outcomes, these are advanced surgical techniques and require extensive anatomical knowledge and extensive surgical experience. Furthermore, to avoid procedure complications, extensive study of the patient’s configuration of cavernous ICA, Doppler-guided intraoperative imaging, surgical navigation system, and blunt tip knives to dissect the ICA’s plane are recommended. Conclusion. Endoscopic resection of the medial wall of the cavernous sinus has been associated with reports of high rates of postoperative hormonal control in functioning pituitary adenomas. However, it represents a more complex approach and requires advanced experience in endoscopic skull base surgery. Additional studies addressing case selection and studies evaluating long term results of this technique are still necessary.
PubMed: 36291288
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12101354 -
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences Oct 2018Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a common eating disorder that affects 2.9 million people worldwide. Not eating a balanced diet or fasting can cause neurological complications... (Review)
Review
Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a common eating disorder that affects 2.9 million people worldwide. Not eating a balanced diet or fasting can cause neurological complications after severe vitamin B1 malnourishment, although the precise signs and symptoms of Wernicke's encephalopathy (WE) are not clear. Our aim was to review the signs and symptoms of WE in patients with AN. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and PiCarta on all case descriptions of WE following AN. All case descriptions of WE in AN, irrespective of language, were included. Twelve WE cases were reviewed, suggesting that WE following AN is still a relatively rare neuropsychiatric disorder. WE is characterized by a triad of: mental status change, ocular signs, and ataxia. In alcoholism, this triad is present in 16% of cases, but eight out of 12 AN cases presented themselves with a full triad of symptomatology. Importantly, patients often had a more complex triad than has been previously described, involving vertigo, diplopia, and the consequences of refeeding syndrome. The development of a full triad and additional symptomatology suggests a late recognition of signs and symptoms of WE in AN. A complicating factor is the overlap between symptoms of thiamine deficiency and the symptoms of WE. Specifically, patients who show rapid weight loss are vulnerable for the development of WE. Eating disorders, such as AN, can lead to WE. Prophylactic thiamine checks and treatment in patients with AN are relevant, and in case of suspicion of WE, adequate parenteral thiamine supplementation is necessary.
Topics: Anorexia Nervosa; Humans; Wernicke Encephalopathy
PubMed: 29984541
DOI: 10.1111/pcn.12735 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2016This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1.Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder, affecting almost 0.5% to 1%... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1.Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder, affecting almost 0.5% to 1% of the population. For nearly 30% of these people, their epilepsy is refractory to currently available drugs. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Lamotrigine is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs and is the topic of this review. Lamotrigine in combination with other antiepileptic drugs (add-on) can reduce seizures, but with some adverse effects. The aim of this systematic review was to overview the current evidence for the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine when used as an adjunctive treatment for people with refractory partial epilepsy.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of lamotrigine on (1) seizures, (2) adverse effect profile, and (3) cognition and quality of life, compared to placebo controls, when used as an add-on treatment for people with refractory partial epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
For the previous version of the review, the authors searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (January 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2010), and reference lists of articles.For this update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (28 May 2015), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to May 2015), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted the manufacturers of lamotrigine (GlaxoSmithKline). No language restrictions were imposed.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised placebo-controlled trials of people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy of any age, in which an adequate method of concealment of randomisation was used. The studies were double-, single- or unblinded. For cross-over studies, the first treatment period was treated as a parallel trial. Eligible participants were adults or children with drug-resistant partial epilepsy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For this update, two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion, and extracted data. Outcomes included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal (any reason), adverse effects, effects on cognition and quality of life. Primary analyses were by intention-to-treat. Sensitivity best and worse case analyses were undertaken to account for missing outcome data. Pooled Risk Ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl) were estimated for the primary outcomes of seizure frequency and treatment withdrawal. For adverse effects, pooled RRs and 99% Cls were calculated.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore, the results are unchanged.For the previous version of the review, the authors found five parallel add-on studies and eight cross-over studies in adults or children with refractory focal epilepsy, and one parallel add-on study with a responder-enriched design in infants. In total, these 14 studies included 1958 participants (38 infants, 199 children, and 1721 adults). Baseline phases ranged from 4 to 12 weeks; treatment phases from 8 to 36 weeks. Overall, eleven studies (n = 1243 participants) were rated as having a low risk of bias, and three (n = 715 participants) had un unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. Effective blinding of studies was reported in three studies (n = 504 participants). The overall risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.80 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.23; 12 RCTs) for twelve studies (n = 1322 participants, adults and children) indicating that lamotrigine was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing seizure frequency. The overall RR for treatment withdrawal (for any reason) was 1.11 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.36; 14 RCTs) for fourteen studies (n = 1958 participants). The adverse events significantly associated with lamotrigine were: ataxia, dizziness, diplopia, and nausea. The RR of these adverse effects were as follows: ataxia 3.34 (99% Cl 2.01 to 5.55; 12 RCTs; n = 1524); dizziness 2.00 (99% Cl 1.51 to 2.64;13 RCTs; n = 1767); diplopia 3.79 (99% Cl 2.15 to 6.68; 3 RCTs; n = 943); nausea 1.81 (99% Cl 1.22 to 2.68; 12 RCTs; n = 1486). The limited data available precluded any conclusions about effects on cognition and quality of life. No important heterogeneity between studies was found for any of the outcomes. Overall, we assessed the evidence as high to moderate quality, due to incomplete data for some outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Lamotrigine as an add-on treatment for partial seizures appears to be effective in reducing seizure frequency, and seems to be fairly well tolerated. However, the trials were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for the long-term. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of lamotrigine, and to compare it with other add-on drugs.Since we did not find any new studies, our conclusions remain unchanged.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Child; Cognition; Cross-Over Studies; Drug Resistance; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epilepsies, Partial; Humans; Lamotrigine; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triazines
PubMed: 27329345
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001909.pub2 -
Medical Hypothesis, Discovery &... 2022The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the most challenging health problem in the last 2 years. Post-COVID-19 multisystem inflammatory syndrome of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the most challenging health problem in the last 2 years. Post-COVID-19 multisystem inflammatory syndrome of children (MIS-C) is a severe post-COVID-19 complication in pediatric patients. Ocular manifestations may be the first presentation of MIS-C, wherein prompt treatment may improve outcomes. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarize the acute and sub-acute ocular manifestations in pediatric patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19.
METHODS
We included all online primary studies, with no language restriction and published between January 1, 2019 and November 18, 2020, reporting any acute or sub-acute ocular manifestations in children with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. PubMed/MEDLINE was searched using the following MeSH and Emtree terms: "eye," "ophthalmologic," "ocular," "vision," "conjunctivitis," "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2," "SARS-CoV-2," "corona," "2019-nCoV," "COVID19," and "COVID." The eligibility and quality of the selected records were assessed by two independent reviewers as per the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review.
RESULTS
A total of 1,192 records were identified electronically. Seven papers were extracted from the reference lists of the eligible records. Thirty-six papers met the inclusion criteria and were categorized into two subgroups according to acute or sub-acute presentation of ocular manifestations. Among 463 pediatric patients with COVID-19, 72 (15.5%) had acute ocular manifestations. There was one patient with central retinal vein occlusion and another with photophobia and diplopia associated with meningoencephalitis. Among 895 pediatric patients with post-COVID-19 MIS-C, 469 (52.4%) had ocular manifestations, which only included non-purulent conjunctivitis.
CONCLUSIONS
Ocular manifestations have been reported in less than one-fifth of pediatric patients with acute COVID-19. Furthermore, conjunctivitis was the only ocular manifestation reported in half of the patients with MIS-C, and it may be missed easily due to its non-purulent nature. During the COVID-19 pandemic, pediatricians and health workers must remain vigilant for early detection of signs of this potentially fatal post-COVID-19 inflammatory syndrome.
PubMed: 37641695
DOI: 10.51329/mehdiophthal1440 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021A rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a separation of the neurosensory retina from the retinal pigment epithelium caused by a full-thickness break associated with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a separation of the neurosensory retina from the retinal pigment epithelium caused by a full-thickness break associated with vitreous traction. While pneumatic retinopexy (PR), scleral buckle (SB), and vitrectomy are all well-received surgical interventions for eyes with RRD, their relative effectiveness has remained controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of PR versus SB or PR versus a combination treatment of SB and vitrectomy for people with RRD and to summarize any data on economic measures and quality of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; and four other databases on 11 March 2021. We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of PR versus SB (with or without vitrectomy) for eyes with RRD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
After screening for eligibility, two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. We followed systematic review standards as set by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update, we identified and included one new randomized controlled trial. Together with two trials from the 2015 version of the review, we included three trials (276 eyes of 274 participants) comparing the effectiveness of PR versus SB. None compared PR versus a combined treatment of SB and vitrectomy. Of the three trials, one was a small study (published in 1996) with 20 participants (20 eyes) enrolled in Ireland and followed for a mean of 16 months; the second (published in 1989) included 196 participants (198 eyes) in the US followed for at least six months, and the third (published in 2021) was conducted in Italy and enrolled 58 participants (58 eyes) with a follow-up of 12 months. Overall, poor reporting quality resulted in unclear or high risks of bias. We found low-certainty evidence that PR may achieve retinal reattachment slightly less often than SB (risk ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 to 1.02; I = 0%; 3 studies, 276 eyes). Eyes undergoing PR may also display a higher risk of recurrent retinal detachment (low-certainty evidence), but the RR estimates were very imprecise (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.98; I = 0%; 3 studies, 276 eyes). All three studies described the final visual acuity (VA) after the two procedures. However, the results were reported using different metrics and could not be combined. One study (196 participants) reported the proportion of eyes with a final VA of 20/40 or greater and favored PR (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.65; low-certainty evidence), whereas in the 2021 study, both groups showed an improvement in final VA and there was no evidence of a difference between the two (mean difference [MD] -0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.19; low-certainty evidence). No study reported data on quality of life or economic measures. Postoperative safety outcomes generally favored PR versus SB (low/very low-certainty evidence); however, there was considerable uncertainty regarding the risk of any operative ocular adverse events (RR 0.55 CI 0.28 to 1.11; 276 eyes), glaucoma (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.46; 198 eyes), macular pucker (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.11; 256 eyes), proliferative vitreoretinopathy (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.96; 276 eyes), and persistent diplopia (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.09; 256 eyes). Eyes undergoing PR experienced fewer postoperative cataract developments (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.75; 153 eyes), choroidal detachments (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57; 198 eyes), and myopic shift (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.10; 256 eyes).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The current update confirms the findings of the previous review. PR may result in lower rates of reattachment and higher rates of recurrence than SB, but carries a lower burden of postoperative complications. The effects of these two procedures on other functional outcomes and quality of life remain uncertain. The available evidence remains insufficient and of low quality.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retina; Retinal Detachment; Scleral Buckling; Vitrectomy
PubMed: 34762741
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008350.pub3 -
Qatar Medical Journal 2021The central nervous system is an unusual location of sarcoidosis, which commonly affects the cranial nerves, meninges, hypothalamus, and pituitary gland. Involvement of...
BACKGROUND
The central nervous system is an unusual location of sarcoidosis, which commonly affects the cranial nerves, meninges, hypothalamus, and pituitary gland. Involvement of the pineal region is extremely rare. This systematic review focused on the diagnosis and management of pineal region sarcoidosis, dorsal mesencephalon, and periaqueductal region.
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to discuss diagnostic modalities and best management tools of the aforementioned pathology.
METHODS
ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases were searched for English or French articles about sarcoidosis of the pineal region, dorsal mesencephalon, and periaqueductal region. The clinical case of a patient managed at our department that we believe is directly relevant to this review is also presented. Patients' demographics, clinical presentations, presence of hydrocephalus, other sarcoidosis locations in the central nervous system, and medical treatment were collected. Surgical management, surgical approach, and outcomes and complications of each procedure were also obtained. This study was conducted in agreement with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.
RESULTS
Fifteen cases were examined. The study sample consisted of nine (60%) male and six (40%) female, and the mean age was 32 years. Eight (53%) patients had hydrocephalus, and the predominant clinical presentations were signs of increasing intracranial pressure (headaches, vomiting, and papilledema). Six (40%) patients had diplopia, and convergence-retraction nystagmus was noted in three (20%) patients. Argyll Robertson sign was present in one patient and suspected in another patient (13%). Medical treatment consisted mainly of steroids (93% of cases). Open surgery on the pineal region was performed in five patients, and four of them reported to have serious complications (such as ophthalmoplegia, hemianopsia, hemiparesis, bilateral third cranial nerve paresis, and cerebellar syndrome). Endoscopic management was performed in two patients without complications.
CONCLUSION
To treat hydrocephalus, brain imaging is mandatory in patients with sarcoidosis if intracranial hypertension is suspected. In pineal region sarcoidosis, management of hydrocephalus is the priority, followed by medical treatment of the lesion. Open surgery of any approach presents a high risk of complications; thus, an endoscopic approach is the preferred management, as it treats hydrocephalus and makes biopsy possible with minimal risk.
PubMed: 34466394
DOI: 10.5339/qmj.2021.29