The impact of hydroxybutyl chitosan and 5-fluorouracil on the procedure of endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy.

To investigate the effects of hydroxybutyl chitosan (HBCS) with and without 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) during endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (Endo-DCR). In addition, the present study observed the impact of HBCS and 5-FU on the functions of the nasal mucosal cell population in vivo . Patients were randomized into HBCS (group A), HBCS combined with 5-FU (group B), and gelatin sponge control group (group C). 16S rRNA high-throughput sequencing technology examined the conjunctival sac and nasal flora changes. In addition, CCK8, cell scratching, and flow cytometry were used to investigate the effects of HBCS and 5-FU on the nasal mucosal cell populations. Subjects in groups A, B, and C had anastomotic areas of 21.83 ± 12.69 mm 2 , 21.57 ± 14.53 mm 2 , and 12.45 ± 8.16 mm 2 , respectively ( P = 0.0359). Group A had less severe epiphora than the other two groups at 1-, 2-, and 12-week postoperative follow-up ( P < 0.05). Complications around the anastomosis in group A were the least severe of the three groups ( P = 0.0259). After surgery, the proportion of pathogenic bacteria in the conjunctival sac and nasal cavity was higher in groups A and B than in healthy adults. At the 2-week follow-up, the structure of nasal flora in group A was more similar to that of the healthy adults compared to group B. Intraoperative use of HBCS at the anastomose improves the postoperative outcome of En-DCR. 5-FU cannot give better postoperative results in En-DCR and is detrimental to the normalization of the postoperative flora in patients with chronic dacryocystitis. At the cellular level, both HBCS and 5-FU inhibit the migration of nasal mucosal cell populations, and 5-FU inhibits proliferation but does not promote apoptosis.

Lin JQ ，Zhao J ，Liu X ，Pazo EE ，Wang Q ，Zhu L ，Lin T ... -  《-》

A Comparative Study Between Anterior-Posterior and Superior-Inferior Flap Suturing Technique in Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy at our Tertiary Institution.

The Nasolacrimal sac inflammation, also known as dacryocystitis, is frequently accompanied by nasolacrimal duct blockage at the confluence of lacrimal sac and duct. Treatment of choice for dacryocystitis is dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR), which can be done through external approach and endoscopic approach. The endoscopic DCR has distinct advantage over the external DCR as there is no facial scar& also it maintains the pump action. We have used flap suturing technique of endoscopic DCR in our study where in lacrimal sac medial flap is sutured to nasal mucosal lateral flap wherein patients were selected into either of the two groups such as Anterior-Posterior type (group A) and Superior-Inferior type (group B) of Flap suturing technique. Aim and objectives of the study were to compare the subjective and objective success rate between group A & B of flap suturing used in endoscopic DCR & to compare the success rate of our techniques with other techniques in literature. Our study was Duration based prospective observational study with a Duration of one year from June 2021 till June 2022 with study population comprised of patients in age group of 20 to 70 years, with complaints of watering of eye (epiphora) attended ENT Department of our institute during this one year. Study population comprised of Total of 86 patients (100 eyes) of which 45 patients (51 EYES) underwent anterior- posterior flap suturing (Group A) and 41 patients (49 eyes) underwent superior- inferior flap suturing (Group B) technique of endoscopic DCR The mean age ± standard error of mean was 45.1765 ± 1.5 and 49.0816 ± 1.9 in group A & B respectively,which was not statistically significant (p value = 0.994). The male and female patients in group A & B was 27.45%,72.54% and 34.69%,65.30% respectively which was not statistically significant (p value = 0.434). At each follow‑up, subjective success rate was more in group A that indicated a better trend of success for that group. However, the difference in the success rate was not statistically significant.The objective success rate between the two groups were more or less similar & was not statistically significant. The subjective success rate in both Anterior-Posterior type (group A)and Superior-Inferior type (group B) of Flap suturing techniques of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy were more or less similar with regards to absence of epiphora but objective success rate with regards to the patency, were almost similar with a shift of trend from Group A to group B at 6 months follow up and we also found that complications in both the groups were very few, without statistically significant difference between them. In terms of success rate and complication,The endoscopic DCR with flap suturing technique found to be more or less similar with previous techniques of DCR described in the literature.

Mane BS ，Naikwadi KB ，Gavali RM 《-》

Endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: impact of long-standing disease on surgical outcomes.

Pace GM ，Giombi F ，Pirola F ，Russo E ，Cerasuolo M ，Zuppardo J ，Muci G ，Giunta G ，Di Maria A ，Romano MR ，Mercante G ，Spriano G ，Malvezzi L ... -  《-》

Collagenase injection versus limited fasciectomy surgery to treat Dupuytren's contracture in adult patients in the UK: DISC, a non-inferiority RCT and economic evaluation.

Dias J ，Tharmanathan P ，Arundel C ，Welch C ，Wu Q ，Leighton P ，Armaou M ，Corbacho B ，Johnson N ，James S ，Cooke J ，Bainbridge C ，Craigen M ，Warwick D ，Brady S ，Flett L ，Jones J ，Knowlson C ，Watson M ，Keding A ，Hewitt C ，Torgerson D ... -  《-》

The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints. To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test. Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions. We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period. Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics. This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2). When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.

Davenport C ，Arevalo-Rodriguez I ，Mateos-Haro M ，Berhane S ，Dinnes J ，Spijker R ，Buitrago-Garcia D ，Ciapponi A ，Takwoingi Y ，Deeks JJ ，Emperador D ，Leeflang MMG ，Van den Bruel A ，Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》