-
Genes Jul 2023On a planet experiencing constant human population growth, it is necessary to explore the anthropogenic effects on the genetic diversity of species, and specifically...
On a planet experiencing constant human population growth, it is necessary to explore the anthropogenic effects on the genetic diversity of species, and specifically invasive species. Using an analysis that integrates comparative phylogeography, urban landscape genetics, macrogenetics and a systematic review, we explore the worldwide genetic diversity of the human commensal and anthropogenic species and . Based on metadata obtained considering 35 selected studies related to observed heterozygosity, measured by nuclear molecular markers (microsatellites, Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms-SNPs-, restrictition site-associated DNA sequencing -RAD-Seq-), socioeconomic and mobility anthropogenic factors were used as predictors of genetic diversity of and , using the Gini index, principal component analysis and Random Forest Regression as analysis methodology. Population density was on average the best predictor of genetic diversity in the species analyzed, indicating that the species respond in a particular way to the characteristics present in urban environments because of a combination of life history characteristics and human-mediated migration and colonization processes. To create better management and control strategies for these rodents and their associated diseases, it is necessary to fill the existing information gap in urban landscape genetics studies with more metadata repositories, with emphasis on tropical and subtropical regions of the world.
Topics: Humans; Rats; Animals; Population Density; Phylogeography; Introduced Species; Microsatellite Repeats; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide
PubMed: 37510346
DOI: 10.3390/genes14071442 -
International Urogynecology Journal Nov 2023Bowel vaginoplasty is a surgical method for neovagina construction that, despite its advantages over other techniques, is still burdened by complications such as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bowel vaginoplasty is a surgical method for neovagina construction that, despite its advantages over other techniques, is still burdened by complications such as prolapse. The incidence of sigmoid neovagina prolapse (SNP) is difficult to determine, and there are no evidence-based recommendations for treatment. We present a case of SNP and a systematic review of previous cases.
CASE
A 73-year-old woman presented with stage III prolapse of her sigmoid neovagina constructed 51 years prior. Dynamic pelvic MRI revealed that the majority of the prolapse was due to the mucosa's loss of support. Due to the presence of numerous pelvic adhesions, an alternative to the laparoscopic approach was evaluated by a multidisciplinary team which led to the patient being treated using a modification of Altemeier's procedure.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
After PROSPERO Registration (CRD42023400677), a systematic search of Medline and Scopus was performed using specific search terms. Study metadata including patient demographics, prolapse measurements, reconstruction techniques, recurrence rates, and timing were extracted. Fourteen studies comprising 17 cases of SNP were included. Vaginal resection of the redundant sigmoid, comprising Altemeier's procedure, was the most definitive surgery, but it was also associated with recurrences in three cases. Laparoscopic sacropexy was the second most definitive surgery with no recurrence reported.
CONCLUSION
Our review shows that the recurrence after correction of sigmoid neovagina prolapses is higher than previously reported. Laparoscopy colposacropexy appeared to be the best approach, but it's not always feasible. In these scenarios, a mucosal resection using the Altemeier's procedure is the most effective surgery.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Aged; Colon, Sigmoid; Prolapse; Vagina; Laparoscopy; Colpotomy; Mullerian Ducts; Congenital Abnormalities; 46, XX Disorders of Sex Development
PubMed: 37490063
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-023-05603-4 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Aug 2023Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) treatment has evolved with the introduction of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques. Endoscopic methods take the concepts applied to MIS a step further, with multiple studies showing that endoscopic techniques have outcomes that are similar to those of more traditional approaches. The aim of this study was to perform an updated meta-analysis and systematic review of studies comparing the outcomes between both available endoscopic techniques (uni and biportal) for the treatment of LSS.
METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic literature search and compared the randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies of uniportal and biportal endoscopy in the treatment of LSS from several databases. Bias was assessed using quality assessment criteria and funnel plots. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to synthesize the metadata. The authors used Review Manager 5.4 to manage the date and perform the review.
RESULTS
After a preliminary selection of 388 studies from electronic databases, the full inclusion criteria were applied; three studies were found to be eligible for inclusion. There were 184 patients from three unique studies. Meta-analysis of visual analog scale score for low back pain and leg pain showed no significant difference at the final follow-up (P = 0.51 and P = 0.66). ODI score after biportal surgery was lower than uniportal surgery [SMD = 0.34, 95% CI (0.04, 0.63), P = 0.02]. The mean operation time was similar in the unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and uniportal groups (P = 0.53). The UBE group was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.05). Complications were similar in both groups (P = 0.89).
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence shows no significant differences in most clinical outcomes between uniportal and biportal surgery. UBE may have a better ODI score at the end of the follow-up compared to uniportal. Further studies are required before drawing a definite conclusion.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO prospective register of systematic reviews: Registration Nº. CRD42022339078, Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/displayrecord.php?ID=CRD42022339078.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Stenosis; Decompression, Surgical; Endoscopy; Lumbar Vertebrae; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36991184
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-07660-1