SMILE and FS-LASIK were comparable in terms of both safety and efficacy. SMILE may create fewer dry eye symptoms than FS-LASIK. Corneal sensitivity was greater after SMILE than FS-LASIK.

Aims:The effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation and warm-water infusion during colonoscopy on patients with chronic constipation remains unknown. We evaluated CO2 insufflation and warm-water irrigation versus air insufflation in unsedated patients with chronic constipation in China.Patients and Methods:This randomized, single–center, controlled trial enrolled 287 consecutive patients, from January 2014 to January 2015, who underwent colonoscopy for chronic constipation. Patients were randomized to CO2 insufflation, warm-water irrigation and air insufflation colonoscopy insertion phase groups. Pain scores were assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS). The primary outcome was real-time maximum insertion pain, recorded by an unblinded nurse assistant. At discharge, the recalled maximum insertion pain was recorded. Meanwhile, patients were requested to select the VAS at 0, 10, 30, and 60 min after the procedure. In addition, cecal intubation and withdrawal time, total procedure time, and adjunct measures were recorded.Results:A total of 287 patients were randomized. The correlation between real-time and recalled maximum insertion pain ((Pearson coefficient r = 0.929; P < 0.0001) confirmed internal validation of the primary outcome. The mean real-time maximum pain scores during insertion 2.9 ± 2.1 for CO2, 2.7 ± 1.9 for water achieved a significantly lower pain score compared with air (5.7 ± 2.5) group (air vs CO2 P < 0.001; air vs water P < 0.001). However, no significant pain score differences were found between the patients in the CO2 and water groups (CO2 vs water, P = 0.0535). P values in painless colonoscopy and only discomfort colonoscopy (pain 1–2) were, respectively, 6 (6.4%) and 8 (8.5%) for air; 17 (17.7%) and 29 (30.2%) for CO2; 16 (16.5%) and 31 (31.9%) for water. At 0, 10, 30, and 60 min postprocedure, pain scores showed in the CO2 and water groups had significantly reduced than in air group. Insertion time was significantly different between air (10.6 ± 2.5) and CO2 (7.2 ± 1.4) (air vs CO2 P < 0.001), air and water (6.9 ± 1.3) (air vs water P < 0.001). However, CO2 and was not significantly different in cecum-intubated time (CO2 vs water, P = 0.404). CO2 and water group in extubation time were significantly different, respectively, CO2 (7.9 ± 1.1) and water (8.0 ± 1.1) (CO2 vs water, P = 0.707). CO2 or water group required less implementation of adjunct measures and more willingness to repeat the procedure.Conclusions:Compared with air, the CO2 or water-aided method reduced real-time maximum pain and cecum-intubated time for chronic constipated patients in unsedated colonoscopy. The CO2 insufflation or warm-water irrigation may be a simple and inexpensive way to reduce discomfort in unsedated patients with constipation. This study demonstrated an advantage of using CO2 insufflation and warm-water irrigation during colonoscopy in unsedated constipated patients in China.

Despite recent clinical guidelines, the optimal therapeutic strategy for the management of refractory chronic cough is still a challenge. The present systematic review was designed to assess the evidence for efficacy and safety of gabapentin in the treatment of chronic cough. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and publications cited in bibliographies was performed. Articles were searched by two reviewers with a priori criteria for study selection. Seven relevant articles were identified, including two randomized controlled trials, one prospective case-series designed with consecutive patients, one retrospective case series of consecutive patients, one retrospective case series with unknown consecutive status, and two case reports comprising six and two patients, respectively. Improvements were detected in cough-specific quality of life (Leicester Cough Questionnaire score) and cough severity (visual analogue scale score) following gabapentin treatment in randomized controlled trials. The results of prospective case-series showed that the rate of overall improvement of cough and sensory neuropathy with gabapentin was 68%. Gabapentin treatment of patients with chronic cough showed superior efficacy and a good safety record compared with placebo or standard medications. Additional randomized and controlled trials are needed.