Several studies have reported clinical manifestations of the new coronavirus disease. However, few studies have systematically evaluated the neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19. We reviewed the medical records of 201 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (52 outpatients and 149 inpatients) that were treated in a large referral center in Tehran, Iran from March 2019 to May 2020. We used clustering approach to categorize clinical symptoms. One hundred and fifty-one patients showed at least one neuropsychiatric symptom. Limb force reductions, headache followed by anosmia, hypogeusia were among the most common neuropsychiatric symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Hierarchical clustering analysis showed that neuropsychiatric symptoms group together in three distinct groups: anosmia and hypogeusia; dizziness, headache, and limb force reduction; photophobia, mental state change, hallucination, vision and speech problem, seizure, stroke, and balance disturbance. Three non-neuropsychiatric cluster of symptoms included diarrhea and nausea; cough and dyspnea; and fever and weakness. Neuropsychiatric presentations are very prevalent and heterogeneous in patients with coronavirus 2 infection and these heterogeneous presentations may be originating from different underlying mechanisms. Anosmia and hypogeusia seem to be distinct from more general constitutional-like and more specific neuropsychiatric symptoms. Skeletal muscular manifestations might be a constitutional or a neuropsychiatric symptom.

the manuscript, references should be cited using Arabic numbers in parentheses. The reference styles for different types of publications are presented in the following examples.

Background: The COVID-19 infection is a novel virus that mainly targets the respiratory system via specific receptors without any coronavirus-targeted therapies. Many efforts have been made to prepare specific vaccines for COVID-19 or use of prefabricated vaccines of other similar viruses, especially severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and influenza (flu). We aimed to evaluate the effects of previous flu vaccine injection on severity of incoming COVID-19 infection. Methods: We conducted a large cross-sectional study of 529 hospitalized Iranian COVID patients to evaluate the severity of disease courses in patients with or without previous flu vaccination history using some main factors like length of hospitalization, need for the intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of stay in the ICU for comparison between COVID-19 infected patients with or without flu vaccination history. For the quantitative data, we used independent-samples t and Mann-Whitney tests. The qualitative data were calculated using the Fisher exact and chi-square tests in IBM SPSS Statistics version 22 (SPSS Inc) and P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There were no significant differences in the demographic data of patients, disease, and severity-related parameters between the 2 groups. It means that there were not any significant differences between patients with and without history of flu vaccination regarding mean days of hospitalization, percentage of needing to be admitted to the ICU, days being admitted to the ICU (8.44±6.36 vs 7.94±8.57; 17% vs 11.5%; and 1.17±3.09 vs 0.92±3.04, retrospectively) (p=0.883, 0.235, and 0.809, respectively). In the laboratory tests, in comparison between patients with and without history of previous flu vaccination, only lymphocytes count in the vaccine positive group was higher than the vaccine negative group (20.82±11.23 vs 18.04±9.71) (p=0.067) and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) levels were higher in the vaccine negative group (146.57±109.72 vs 214.15±332.06) (p=0.006). Conclusion: We did not find any association between flu vaccination and decrease in disease severity in our patients. It seems that patients with previous history of flu vaccination may experience less laboratory abnormalities in some parameters that could be interpreted in favor of lower overall inflammation; however, this study cannot answer this definitely because of its design. As we collected retrospective data from only alive discharged patients and had no healthy control group, we could not discuss the probable effect of the vaccine on the mortality rate or its probable protective role against the infection. We need more well-designed controlled studies with different populations in different geographic areas to address the controversies.

BackgroundIntervertebral disc herniation with the pressure on the surrounding neural structures is one of the most important causes of chronic low back pain, which sometimes leads to open surgery. Reducing the pressure inside the disc with intradiscal intervention such as laser irradiation or ozone injection is a minimally invasive method and an alternative to surgery with satisfactory results. These two methods were compared with each other in this research.Patients and methodsIn this clinical trial, 40 patients with back pain radiating to lower limb due to lumbar intervertebral disc herniation were selected. These patients were randomly divided into two equal groups for percutaneous intradiscal intervention. The Laser Disc Decompression Group (LDG) (n=20) was exposed to 1500 J of laser irradiation into the disc center. In the Ozone Injection Group (OZG) patients (n=20), 6 mL of ozone 30 µg/mL was injected into the center of the disc. Considering the level of neural root involvement, both groups received 20 mg of triamcinolone injection via transforaminal epidural. Patients were followed up for 12 months regarding score on visual analogue scale and life performance improvement based on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and satisfaction level.ResultsAccording to the results, no difference was found between the two groups for ODI variable before intervention, whereas OZG showed better ODI scores in the measured time intervals. In LDG, only a significant difference in terms of ODI score was found between the times of before surgery and the first month.ConclusionIntradiscal ozone injection could be an effective and cost-effective method for treatment of patients with discogenic back pain.

Background: Given the importance of patients’ pain after laparoscopic surgeries, this study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of intraperitoneal bupivacaine, acetazolamide, and placebo on pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery. Methods: Patients admitted to Rasool Akram hospital with physical status I or II, based on the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) system, who were candidates for laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery due to gallstones, were included in this study. Patients were divided into 3 groups (each group containing 20 patients) using block randomization with foursome blocks. Group 1 received bupivacaine, group 2 acetazolamide, and group 3 intravenous saline as placebo. After surgery, pain score was assessed by visual analogue scale, and shoulder pain and analgesic doses were also measured. The mentioned parameters were assessed at 1, 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours after surgery. Results: In this study, 60 patients were included in 3 groups. The mean pain recorded (VAS) at 1, 4, and 8 hours after surgery was not significantly different between acetazolamide and bupivacaine groups, but their score was significantly lower than the placebo group (p<0.05). However, the score recorded at 12 and 24 hours after surgery was not significantly different between the 3 groups (p>0.05). Mean of pain reliever (acetaminophen) injected to the patients when needed was not significantly different among the 3 intervention groups (p<0.05). The highest prevalence of shoulder pain (70%) belonged to the placebo group and the lowest (25%) to acetazolamide (p<0.05). Mean heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and the respiratory rate were not significantly different among intervention groups in 1, 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours after surgery (p>0.05). Conclusion: According to the results, acetazolamide and bupivacaine injection reduced pain in early hours after laparoscopy. However, pain intensity was not different between intervention groups and the control group after 12 hours, so re-prescription seems to be appropriate at this time. Acetazolamide injection significantly reduces shoulder pains after surgery.

Background:Although controversial, many studies have shown effectiveness of colloid loading as a substitute for crystalloids on reducing the incidence of hypotension in spinal anesthesia. This study was conducted to compare the effects of three intravenous fluid regimens on hemodynamic changes following spinal anesthesia in cesarean section. The regimens included 6% Hydroxyethylstarch 130/0.4 (HES) as a colloid and two crystalloids (lactated ringer’s solution and sodium chloride 0.9%).Material & Method:In a double-blind clinical trial, 90 otherwise healthy parturients candidate of elective caesarean section were randomly allocated to receive lactated ringer’s solution (1000 ml), sodium chloride 0.9% (1000 ml) or HES (7.5 mL/Kg) as preloading before spinal anesthesia. Hemodynamic parameters including blood pressure and heart rate, umbilical cord blood pH and the neonatal Apgar score were compared among the three groups.Results:There was no difference in the basic hemodynamic measurements among the three groups. The incidence of hypotension and required dose of ephedrine was lower in HES group (p=0.008). There was no significant difference in umbilical cord blood PH or Apgar scores among intervention groups.Conclusion:Preloading with HES is more effective than crystalloids in prevention hypotension after spinal anesthesia without significant difference in Apgar score and umblical cord blood pH.

Background:Painful sensation has been reported after propofol injection in most of the patients but no definite mechanism for this painful sensation has been proposed yet. The present randomized clinical trial compares analgesic effect of ondansetron, magnesium sulphate (MS) and placebo on patients after propofol 2% injection.Materials and Methods:The present randomized clinical trial with parallel design was performed on 90 patients American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II undergoing general anesthesia within vitrectomy operation with propofol induction. Subjects were randomly allocated into three groups with 30 patients each: (1) MS group (2) ondansetron group and (3) normal saline (NS) group as placebo group. Anesthesia induction and maintenance were the same between groups. Pain intensity of propofol injection in subjects was assessed by a four-point scale (none 0, mild 1, moderate 2 and severe 3) at four time intervals (5, 10, 20 and 25 s) after injection.Results:MS and ondansetron had significant impacts on pain reduction after propofol 2% injection in comparison with NS as placebo. Comparing two trial groups did not have any significant priority for analgesic impact.Conclusion:Using ondansetron or MS had no priority on each other on declining propofol injection induced pain.

Introduction: Laparoscopic gynecologic surgery is one of the most well-known procedures. Pneumoperitoneum with carbon dioxide insufflation can cause unfavorable hemodynamic effects due to catecholamine and vasopressin release. Aim: To examine the effects of stellate ganglion block on hemodynamic response and postoperative pain. Material and methods: In a prospective double blinded randomized parallel study we included 40 patients with ASA physical status I and II, aged between 18 and 50 years with a gynecologic problem candidate for laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Fifteen minutes before anesthesia induction, the patients underwent ultrasound guided stellate ganglion block with 10 ml of lidocaine 1% and the control group underwent stellate ganglion block using 10 ml of distilled water as placebo. After induction of general anesthesia, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were recorded, especially after blowing of CO 2 gas, the position change, depletion of CO 2 , and tracheal extubation in recovery. The postoperative pain was calculated using the visual analogue scale (VAS) at three times (0, 30, and 24 h after surgery). Results: Our results showed that mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate did not show any significant difference at the measurement times (p > 0.05), and mean VAS of patients in the two groups was significantly different for the three measurement times except 24 h after surgery (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Stellate ganglion block before laparoscopic gynecologic surgery has no significant effect on intraoperative and postoperative hemodynamic responses; however, it can decrease VAS in the early postoperative period.