OBJECTIVE Ideal timeframes for operating on traumatic stretch and blunt brachial plexus injuries remain a topic of debate. Whereas on the one hand spontaneous recovery might occur, on the other hand, long delays are believed to result in poorer functional outcomes. The goal of this review is to assess the optimal timeframe for surgical intervention for traumatic brachial plexus injuries. METHODS A systematic search was performed in January 2017 in PubMed and Embase databases according to the PRISMA guidelines. Search terms related to "brachial plexus injury" and "timing" were used. Obstetric plexus palsies were excluded. Qualitative synthesis was performed on all studies. Timing of operation and motor outcome were collected from individual patient data. Patients were categorized into 5 delay groups (0-3, 3-6, 6-9, 9-12, and > 12 months). Median delays were calculated for Medical Research Council (MRC) muscle grade ≥ 3 and ≥ 4 recoveries. RESULTS Forty-three studies were included after full-text screening. Most articles showed significantly better motor outcome with delays to surgery less than 6 months, with some studies specifying even shorter delays. Pain and quality of life scores were also significantly better with shorter delays. Nerve reconstructions performed after long time intervals, even more than 12 months, can still be useful. All papers reporting individual-level patient data described a combined total of 569 patients; 65.5% of all patients underwent operations within 6 months and 27.4% within 3 months. The highest percentage of ≥ MRC grade 3 (89.7%) was observed in the group operated on within 3 months. These percentages decreased with longer delays, with only 35.7% ≥ MRC grade 3 with delays > 12 months. A median delay of 4 months (IQR 3-6 months) was observed for a recovery of ≥ MRC grade 3, compared with a median delay of 7 months (IQR 5-11 months) for ≤ MRC grade 3 recovery. CONCLUSIONS The results of this systematic review show that in stretch and blunt injury of the brachial plexus, the optimal time to surgery is shorter than 6 months. In general, a 3-month delay appears to be appropriate because while recovery is better in those operated on earlier, this must be considered given the potential for spontaneous recovery.
Background and Purpose: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with an increased incidence of thrombotic events, including stroke. However, characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with stroke are not well known. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of risk factors, stroke characteristics, and short-term outcomes in a large health system in New York City. We included consecutively admitted patients with acute cerebrovascular events from March 1, 2020 through April 30, 2020. Data were stratified by COVID-19 status, and demographic variables, medical comorbidities, stroke characteristics, imaging results, and in-hospital outcomes were examined. Among COVID-19-positive patients, we also summarized laboratory test results. Results: Of 277 patients with stroke, 105 (38.0%) were COVID-19-positive. Compared with COVID-19-negative patients, COVID-19-positive patients were more likely to have a cryptogenic (51.8% versus 22.3%, P <0.0001) stroke cause and were more likely to suffer ischemic stroke in the temporal ( P =0.02), parietal ( P =0.002), occipital ( P =0.002), and cerebellar ( P =0.028) regions. In COVID-19-positive patients, mean coagulation markers were slightly elevated (prothrombin time 15.4±3.6 seconds, partial thromboplastin time 38.6±24.5 seconds, and international normalized ratio 1.4±1.3). Outcomes were worse among COVID-19-positive patients, including longer length of stay ( P <0.0001), greater percentage requiring intensive care unit care ( P =0.017), and greater rate of neurological worsening during admission ( P <0.0001); additionally, more COVID-19-positive patients suffered in-hospital death (33% versus 12.9%, P <0.0001). Conclusions: Baseline characteristics in patients with stroke were similar comparing those with and without COVID-19. However, COVID-19-positive patients were more likely to experience stroke in a lobar location, more commonly had a cryptogenic cause, and had worse outcomes.
IntroductionThis review aims to summarize challenges in clinical management of concomitant gliomas and pregnancy and provides suggestions for this management based on current literature.MethodsPubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched for studies on glioma and pregnancy. Observational studies and articles describing expert opinions on clinical management were included. The strength of evidence was categorized as arguments from observational studies, consensus in expert opinions, or single expert opinions. Risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).Results27 studies were selected, including 316 patients with newly diagnosed (n = 202) and known (n = 114) gliomas during pregnancy. The median sample size was 6 (range 1–65, interquartile range 1–9). Few recommendations originated from observational studies; the remaining arguments originated from consensus in expert opinions.ConclusionFindings from observational studies of adequate quality include (1) There is no known effect of pregnancy on survival in low-grade glioma patients; (2) Pregnancy can provoke clinical deterioration and tumor growth on MRI; (3) In stable women at term, there is no benefit of cesarean section over vaginal delivery, with respect to adverse events in mother or child. Unanswered questions include when pregnancy should be discouraged, what best monitoring schedule is for both mother and fetus, and if and how chemo- and radiation therapy can be safely administered during pregnancy. A multicenter individual patient level meta-analysis collecting granular information on clinical management and related outcomes is needed to provide scientific evidence for clinical decision-making in pregnant glioma patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s11060-018-2851-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.