5 research outputs found

    Efficacy and safety of flexible versus rigid endoscopic third ventriculostomy in pediatric and adult populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) is a well-established surgical procedure for hydrocephalus treatment, but there is sparse evidence on the optimal choice between flexible and rigid approaches. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare efficacy and safety profiles of both techniques in pediatrics and adults. A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane until 11/10/2019. Efficacy was evaluated comparing incidence of ETV failure, while safety was defined by the incidence of perioperative complications, intraoperative bleedings, and deaths. Random-effects models were used to pool the incidence. Out of 1365 studies, 46 case series were meta-analyzed, yielding 821 patients who underwent flexible ETV and 2918 who underwent rigid ETV, with an age range of [5 days-87 years]. Although flexible ETV had a higher incidence of failure in adults (flexible: 54%, 95%CI: 22-82% vs rigid: 20%, 95%CI: 22-82%) possibly due to confounding due to etiology in adults treated with flexible, a smaller difference was seen in pediatrics (flexible: 36%, pediatric: 32%). Safety profiles were acceptable for both techniques, with a certain degree of variability for complications (flexible 2%, rigid 18%) and death (flexible 1%, rigid 3%) in pediatrics as well as complications (rigid 9%, flexible 13%), death (flexible 4%, rigid 6%) and intra-operative bleeding events (rigid 6%, flexible 8%) in adults. No clear superiority in efficacy could be depicted between flexible and rigid ETV for hydrocephalus treatment. Safety profiles varied by age but were acceptable for both techniques. Well-designed comparative studies are needed to assess the optimal endoscopic treatment option for hydrocephalus

    Mobile health and neurocognitive domains evaluation through smartphones: A meta-analysis

    No full text
    A B S T R A C T Background: Mobile health (mHealth) have significantly advanced evaluating neurocognitive functions; but, few reports have documented whether they validate neurocognitive impairments as well as paper and-pencil neuropsychological tests. Objective: To meta-analyze the correlation between mobile applications for neuropsychological tests and validated paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests for evaluating neurocognitive impairments. Method: We used PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and IEEE Explorer through January 2020 to identify studies that compared mobile applications for neuropsychological tests vs. paper-and-pencil neurophysiological tests. We used random-effects models via the DerSimonian and Laird method to extract pooled Pearson's correlation coefficients and we stratified by study design. Result: Nine out of 4639 screened articles (one RCT and eight prospective longitudinal case series) were included. For the observational studies, there was a statistically significant strong and direct correlation between mobile applications for neuropsychological test scores and validated paper-and-pencil neuropsychological assessment scores (r = 0.70; 95% CI 0.59, 0.79; I 2 = 74.5%; p-heterogeneity < 0.001). Stronger results were seen for the RCT (r = 0.92; 95% CI 0.77, 0.97). Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed a statistically significant correlation between mobile applications and the validated paper-and-pencil neuropsychological assessments analyzed for the evaluation of neurocognitive impairments. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

    Neurosurgical resection for locally recurrent brain metastasis.

    No full text
    BACKGROUND In patients with locally recurrent brain metastases (LRBMs), the role of (repeat) craniotomy is controversial. This study aimed to analyze long-term oncological outcomes in this heterogeneous population. METHODS Craniotomies for LRBM were identified from a tertiary neuro-oncological institution. First, we assessed overall survival (OS) and intracranial control (ICC) stratified by molecular profile, prognostic indices, and multimodality treatment. Second, we compared LRBMs to propensity score-matched patients who underwent craniotomy for newly diagnosed brain metastases (NDBM). RESULTS Across 180 patients, median survival after LRBM resection was 13.8 months and varied by molecular profile, with >24 months survival in ALK/EGFR+ lung adenocarcinoma and HER2+ breast cancer. Furthermore, 102 patients (56.7%) experienced intracranial recurrence; median time to recurrence was 5.6 months. Compared to NDBMs (n = 898), LRBM patients were younger, more likely to harbor a targetable mutation and less likely to receive adjuvant radiation (p 0.20) compared to NDBM patients with similar baseline. Results across specific molecular subgroups suggested comparable effect directions of varying sizes. CONCLUSIONS In our data, patients with LRBMs undergoing craniotomy comprised a subgroup of brain metastasis patients with relatively favorable clinical characteristics and good survival outcomes. Recurrent status predicted shorter OS but did not impact ICC. Craniotomy could be considered in selected, prognostically favorable patients
    corecore