Use of nanotechnology in the diagnosis and treatment of coronavirus

Coronavirus is a beta virus that has caused a worldwide pandemic since December 2019. Many treatments such as antiviral drugs, immunosuppressive drugs, neutralizing antibodies, and monoclonal antibodies have been tested on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that most of them were effective. Given that nanotechnology-based approaches have been successful in detection and treatment of viral systems such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), influenza A virus subtype H1N1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), they also seem to be effective in detecting and treating COVID-19. Nanotechnology is used in various methods for early and rapid diagnosis of the disease. Nanoparticles can be used in products for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of COVID-19. These substances are very effective in the controlled delivery of antiviral drugs and biomolecules and they are also used in the manufacture of personal safety equipment, widely, and the production of anti-virus coatings for surfaces, air filters and the production of vaccines. In general, nanomaterial can play an important role in controlling the disease, based on strategies to prevent the virus from entering the host cell, inhibiting virus replication, virus delivery systems, and nano-based vaccines. Nanotechnology is a multidisciplinary tool that can offer a variety of solutions based on disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment strategies

The global, prevalence, and risk factors of postoperative fever after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: This study aimed to explore the global, prevalence, and risk factors of fever after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The high-sensitivity searching was conducted without time limitation until December 30, 2020 in Web of Sciences, Scopus, and PubMed based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: The prevalence rates of fever and sepsis among patient undergoing PCNL were estimated 9.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.3%–9.7%), and 4.5% (95% CI: 4.2%–4.8%), respectively. Nephrostomy tube was used in 9.96% (95% CI: 9.94%–9.97%) of patients. The mean preoperative white blood cells of patients were 6.401×109/L; 18.3% and 4.55% of patients were considered as the positive urinary culture and pyuria, respectively. About 20.4% of patients suffered from residual stones. The odds ratios (ORs) of fever in patients who suffering from diabetes mellitus, hydronephrosis, staghorn stones, and blood transfusion were 4.62 (95% CI: 2.95–7.26), 1.04 (95% CI: 0.81–1.34), 2.57 (95% CI: 0.93–7.11), and 2.65 (95% CI: 1.62–4.35), respectively. Patients who underwent PCNL in prone position were more likely to develop fever (OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.75–2.00) than patients in supine position. Conclusion: The current study showed that patients who suffer from diabetes mellitus, hydronephrosis, staghorn stones, nephrostomy tube or double-J stent, blood transfusion, and also patients who underwent PCNL in prone position surgery are more likely to develop a postoperative fever after PCNL