There are limited proven therapeutic options for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. The role of vitamin and mineral supplementation or “immunonutrition” has previously been explored in a number of clinical trials in intensive care settings, and there are several hypotheses to support their routine use. The aim of this narrative review was to investigate whether vitamin supplementation is beneficial in COVID-19. A systematic search strategy with a narrative literature summary was designed, using the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trial Registry, and Nexis media databases. The immune-mediating, antioxidant and antimicrobial roles of vitamins A to E were explored and their potential role in the fight against COVID-19 was evaluated. The major topics extracted for narrative synthesis were physiological and immunological roles of each vitamin, their role in respiratory infections, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and COVID-19. Vitamins A to E highlighted potentially beneficial roles in the fight against COVID-19 via antioxidant effects, immunomodulation, enhancing natural barriers, and local paracrine signaling. Level 1 and 2 evidence supports the use of thiamine, vitamin C, and vitamin D in COVID-like respiratory diseases, ARDS, and sepsis. Although there are currently no published clinical trials due to the novelty of SARS-CoV-2 infection, there is pathophysiologic rationale for exploring the use of vitamins in this global pandemic, supported by early anecdotal reports from international groups. The final outcomes of ongoing trials of vitamin supplementation are awaited with interest.

No abstract

Background: Robotically assisted latissimus dorsi harvest permits harvest of the latissimus dorsi muscle without a back incision, as compared to the traditional open technique. The authors hypothesized that robotic harvest has lower donor-site complication rates, decreased opioid requirements, and a shorter length of stay than the traditional open technique. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of all consecutive pedicled latissimus dorsi flaps for breast reconstruction between 2011 and 2015. All procedures were conducted by two surgeons who performed both robotic and open cases. Results: Fifty-two patients were identified; 25 underwent robotically assisted latissimus dorsi harvest and 27 underwent the open technique. Demographic data between the two groups were similar. Median length of stay for robotic harvest was shorter than that for the traditional technique (2 days versus 3 days; p = 0.031). Postoperative morphine requirement was less in the robotic compared to the traditional technique, but the difference was not significant (158 mg versus 184 mg; p = 0.826). Seroma rate was higher in the robotic group (16 percent versus 0 percent; p = 0.034). The mean duration of surgery was longer in the robotic cohort (388 minutes versus 311 minutes; p = 0.002). Conclusions: This study demonstrates robotically assisted latissimus dorsi harvest as an effective alternative to the traditional open technique in select patients. Advantages of robotic harvest include no back scar, a shorter length of stay, and lower opioid requirements, although the difference was not significant; disadvantages include longer operative time and a higher seroma rate. Clinical Question/Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III.

Purpose: Bioprinting is becoming an increasingly popular platform technology for engineering a variety of tissue types. Our aim was to identify biomaterials that have been found to be suitable for extrusion 3D bioprinting, outline their biomechanical properties and biocompatibility towards their application for bioprinting specific tissue types. This systematic review provides an in-depth overview of current biomaterials suitable for extrusion to aid bioink selection for specific research purposes and facilitate design of novel tailored bioinks.Methods: A systematic search was performed on EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases according to the PRISMA guidelines. References of relevant articles, between December 2006 to January 2018, on candidate bioinks used in extrusion 3D bioprinting were reviewed by two independent investigators against standardised inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data was extracted on bioprinter brand and model, printing technique and specifications (speed and resolution), bioink material and class of mechanical assessment, cell type, viability, and target tissue. Also noted were authors, study design (in vitro/in vivo), study duration and year of publication.Results: A total of 9,720 studies were identified, 123 of which met inclusion criteria, consisting of a total of 58 reports using natural biomaterials, 26 using synthetic biomaterials and 39 using a combination of biomaterials as bioinks. Alginate (n = 50) and PCL (n = 33) were the most commonly used bioinks, followed by gelatin (n = 18) and methacrylated gelatin (GelMA) (n = 16). Pneumatic extrusion bioprinting techniques were the most common (n = 78), followed by piston (n = 28). The majority of studies focus on the target tissue, most commonly bone and cartilage, and investigate only one bioink rather than assessing a range to identify those with the most promising printability and biocompatibility characteristics. The Bioscaffolder (GeSiM, Germany), 3D Discovery (regenHU, Switzerland), and Bioplotter (EnvisionTEC, Germany) were the most commonly used commercial bioprinters (n = 35 in total), but groups most often opted to create their own in-house devices (n = 20). Many studies also failed to specify whether the mechanical data reflected pre-, during or post-printing, pre- or post-crosslinking and with or without cells.Conclusions: Despite the continued increase in the variety of biocompatible synthetic materials available, there has been a shift change towards using natural rather than synthetic bioinks for extrusion bioprinting, dominated by alginate either alone or in combination with other biomaterials. On qualitative analysis, no link was demonstrated between the type of bioink or extrusion technique and the target tissue, indicating that bioprinting research is in its infancy with no established tissue specific bioinks or bioprinting techniques. Further research is needed on side-by-side characterisation of bioinks with standardisation of the type and timing of biomechanical assessment.