Search

Background: Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has been thought to be an effective adjuvant to local anesthetics (LAs) in erector spinae plane block (ESPB), however, this method of use is not recorded in the drug instructions. Hence, our meta-analysis will evaluate its efficacy and safety for the first time. Methods: A systematic search of published articles was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane Library databases up to July 17, 2022, using specific keywords related to our aims. The time first to request rescue analgesia, number of patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) presses, rate of rescue analgesia use, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), arrhythmia, and hypotension were calculated by using random-effect models. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022345488). Results: Numerous electronic databases were searched and finally 8 studies with a total of 570 patients, 303 in the DEX arm, 267 in the control arm were included. As an adjuvant to LAs, DEX significantly increased the time to first request of rescue analgesia (mean difference [MD] = 8.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.70–12.10, P < 0.00001), reduced the number of PCIA presses (MD = -4.12, 95% CI = -7.79 to -0.45, P = 0.03) and the rate of rescue analgesia (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.17–0.65, P = 0.002). Moreover, the combination reduced the risk of PONV (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.36–0.91, P = 0.02). In addition, there was no difference in the incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.37–2.74, P = 0.99) and arrhythmia (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.19–3.07, P = 0.70). Conclusion: DEX can reduce analgesic requirements after various surgical procedures when used as an adjuvant to LAs for ESPB. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of safety indicators (arrhythmia, hypotension). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore the association between ovulation induction drugs and ovarian cancer. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting: Not applicable. Patient(s): Women without ovarian cancer who ever or never underwent ovarian induction. Intervention(s): An extensive electronic search of the following databases was performed: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library and CNKI, from inception until January 2022. A total of 34 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. The odds ratio (OR) and random-effects model were used to estimate the pooled effects. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies. Funnel plots and Egger tests were used to assess publication bias. Main outcomes: New diagnosed borderline ovarian tumor (BOT) and invasive ovarian cancer (IOC) between ovulation induction (OI) group and control (CT) group considering fertility outcome, OI cycles and specific OI drugs. Results: Primarily, there was no significant difference in the incidence of IOC and BOT between the OI and CT groups. Secondly, OI treatment did not increase the risk of IOC and BOT in the multiparous women, nor did it increase the risk of IOC in the nulliparous women. However, the risk of BOT appeared to be higher in nulliparous women treated with OI treatment. Thirdly, among women exposed to OI, the risk of IOC and BOT was higher in nulliparous women than in multiparous women. Fourthly, the risk of IOC did not increase with increasing OI cycles. Lastly, exposure to specific OI drugs also did not contribute to the risk of IOC and BOT. Conclusion: Overall, OI treatment did not increase the risk of IOC and BOT in most women, regardless of OI drug type and OI cycle. However, nulliparous women treated with OI showed a higher risk of ovarian cancer, necessitating their rigorous monitoring and ongoing follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]