Search

Background: The growing incidence of obesity has led to a proportionate rise in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and its associated complications. We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of Roux-en-y Gastric Bypass surgery (RYGB) and conventional medical management in T2DM obese patients. Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrial.gov were searched from inception to September 2023. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were the T2DM remission at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years and the accomplishment of the ADA composite triple treatment goal. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 and New-Castle Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of the studies. This meta-analysis was registered prospectively on PROSPERO CRD42023466324. Results: Of the 3,323 studies yielded from our initial search, 22 were included in this evidence analysis, with 5,176 total patients (1,984 and 3,192 patients in RYGB and conventional medical management groups). A significant increase in the accomplishment in the ADA's composite triple treatment goal was observed in RYGB group as compared to the conventional medical management group (RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.39–4.15, p-value 0.002, I2 35%). Diabetes remission was a clinically successful outcome after 1, 2, 3, and 5 years of the RYGB surgery in the patients (1 year; RR 4.74, 95%CI 2.46–9.12, p-value < 0.00001, I2 0%, 2 years; RR 8.95, 95% CI 1.71–46.71, p-value 0.009, I2 92%3 years; RR 18.18 95%CI 7.57–43.62, p-value < 0.00001, I2 0%, 5 years; RR 0.22, 95% CI 2.31–16.75, p-value 0.0003, I2 = 71%). Conclusion: The pooled analysis of the given data concluded that the RYGB surgery was more effective in treating T2DM in patients than conventional medical management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery are key interventions for breast cancer, a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in women. Many undergoing breast surgery experience postoperative pain compromising their functionality and quality of life. While multiple pain management strategies are available, evidence comparing the erector spinae (ESPB) and serratus anterior plane blocks (SAPB) for improving post-surgical pain management in breast cancer surgery patients is limited. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy and safety of these two regional anesthesia techniques. Methods: After PROSPERO registration, we systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library until May 2024. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and standard mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) were computed for continuous data. RevMan Review Manager 5.4.1 was used for the data analysis and generation of forest plots as well as funnel plots. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 (18) and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines were used to appraise and evaluate the evidence (19). Results: A total of 9 randomized control trials enrolling 550 patients were included. Static pain scores at 0, 6, 8, 12, and 24 h after surgery, dynamic pain scores computed at 0, 8, 12, and 24 h after surgery and area under the curve (AUC) static pain score at all time points between 0 and 24 h (SMD (HKSJ 95% CI) − 0.27 [− 0.99, 0.45]) did not significantly vary with either plane block. Postoperative morphine consumption in the first 24 h and the number of patients requesting analgesia were significantly greater in those receiving SAPB [MD: − 1.41 (95% C.I. − 2.70, − 0.13), p = 0.03] and [RR: 1.28 (95% C.I. 1.00, 1.63), p = 0.05], respectively. The time to first postoperative analgesic use was significantly greater among those administered ESPB [MD: 1.55 h, (95% C.I. 1.02, 2.09), p < 0.01]. Patient satisfaction scores and the incidence of nausea and vomiting were similar across both groups. Conclusions: While pain scores with either block are comparable, ESPB reduces postoperative morphine consumption and may be the favorable option in breast cancer patients undergoing surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: One million individuals in the USA die from acute myocardial infarction (MI), which currently affects 3 million people globally. The available data about the early and late outcomes of both biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) and durable polymer drug-eluting stents exhibit inconsistency. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of BP-DES with DP-DES. Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Clinical Trials.gov databases were used to find out studies comparing BP-DES to DP-DES. All the analyses used the random-effects model. Results: A total of 18 studies were incorporated in this meta-analysis that involved 28,874 patients, out of which 11,997 received the BP Stent, and the rest of 16,578 received the DP stent. Thorough analyses revealed that the risk of all-cause death was significantly higher in the BP-DES group (5.4% vs 2.7%) (RR 1.22, p 0.02) for two years or less than two-year follow-up. For studies with more than two years of follow-up, all-cause death was 9.07% (599/6603) in BP-DES and 9.47% (531/5602) in the DP-DES group but failed to achieve statistically significant levels (RR 0.97, p 0.58). Conclusions: The study revealed no clinically significant (P value was > 0.05) differences in all-cause death, cardiac death, target lesion revascularization (TLR), late stent thrombosis, device-oriented composite endpoint/target lesion failure (DOCE/TLF), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel MI, target vessel revascularization (TVR), target vessel infarction (TVI) between BP-DES and DP-DES for more than two years of follow-up. Additionally, all-cause death was only outcomes which found to have a statistically significant difference for less than two years of follow-up, while remaining were statistically non-significant. Article highlights: BP-DES results in a higher all-cause death rate over follow-up periods of < 2 years compared to DP-DES. There are no appreciable clinical differences between the two types of stents for follow-up periods longer than 2 years for BP-DES and DP-DES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) are regional anesthesia techniques that have shown favorable results in pain management following thoracic surgeries; however, their relative superiority is unclear. This review (PROSPERO: CRD42023443018) aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of ESPB and SAPB in patients undergoing thoracic surgeries through the pooled analysis of co-primary outcomes: postoperative oral-morphine-equivalent (mg) consumption in 24 h and pain scores (static) at 24 h. Methods: A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to May 2023, comparing ESPB and SAPB in thoracic surgeries. Statistical pooling was done using Review Manager 5.4.1. Bias assessment employed the Cochrane Collaboration Risk-of-Bias 2.0 tool. The strength of evidence was assessed using the guidelines from the GRADE working group. Results: Nine RCTs (485 patients) were included in the study. Postoperative pain scores (static) at 24 h (mean difference (MD) = − 0.31 [− 0.57, 0.05], p = 0.02) and postoperative oral-morphine-equivalent (mg) consumption in 24 h (MD = − 19.73 [− 25.65, − 13.80], p < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the ESBP group. However, the MDs did not exceed the set threshold for clinical importance. No significant differences were observed in the opioid-related adverse effects and block-related complications. Conclusion: Our statistically significant results imply that ESPB has superior analgesic efficacy compared to SAPB; however, this difference is clinically unimportant. The safety profile of the two blocks is comparable; hence, current evidence cannot define the relative superiority of one block over the other. Our findings warrant further research with standardized methodologies and a longer duration of analgesic efficacy assessment to yield robust evidence for better clinical applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis." The original article contained errors in the author names, which have been corrected in this notice. The corrected names are provided, and the original article has been updated accordingly. The authors of the article are Muhammad Hudaib, Hurais Malik, Syeda Javeria Zakir, Samra Rabbani, Dhanushan Gnanendran, Abdul Rehman Shah Syed, Noor Fatima Suri, Javeria Khan, Arham Iqbal, Nowal Hussain, Muhammad Abdullah, Satesh Kumar, Mahima Khatri, and Giustino Varrassi. [Extracted from the article]

To represent the role of Nutrigenetic variants and response to diet/lifestyle intervention in obese subjects, the sample could have included subjects from various racial and geographical backgrounds. To the editor, The article by Marica Franzago et al. 1 entitled "Nutrigenetic variants and response to diet/lifestyle intervention in obese subjects: a pilot study" was read with great interest. [Extracted from the article]

Dear Editor, We have read the work by Joel Willem Johan Lasschuit et al. titled "Contribution of peripheral neuropathy to poor bone health in the foot of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus" [[1]]. [Extracted from the article]

Third, lifetime prevalence in depressed patients having diabetes is low. Fifth, the primary goal of treatment for such patients should be to treat depression alongside antidiabetic drugs because, in this way, the patient will have a good mood. [Extracted from the article]