BACKGROUND: Endoscopic vidian neurectomy is expected to provide good therapeutic relief in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) being refractory to medication therapy or conservative surgery. However, the evidence bases for its benefit remain debatable. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the therapeutic role of various forms of vidian neurectomy in refractory AR.
METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used to conduct a systematic review of primary studies that reported original patient data for endoscopic vidian neurectomy (EVN) and vidian-branch neurectomy, which includes selective vidian neurectomy (SVN) and posterior nasal neurectomy (PNN). The primary outcome was patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS), to assess an improvement in nasal symptom severity and quality of patient\'s life. The incidence of surgical complications and other objective outcomes were considered secondary outcomes.
RESULTS: This review included 24 clinical studies involving 1677 patients with refractory AR, of which 510 patients in six studies had combined chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and 95 patients in one study had combined asthma. Postoperative PROMs were significantly better than preoperatively in almost all patients who underwent vidianp (RQLQ: standardized mean difference [SMD] = 2.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.40-2.92, p < 0.001; VAS: SMD = 5.15, 95% CI = 4.29-6.02, p < 0.001) or vidian-branch neurectomy (RQLQ in PNN: SMD = 3.29, 95% CI = 2.45-4.13, p < 0.001; VAS in PNN: SMD = 4.38, 95% CI = 3.41-5.34, p < 0.001), and were generally better than in the conservative treatment group. Dividing with 18 months as the cutoff point, a subgroup analysis of the follow-up period was conducted, and the results showed that both long-term and short-term postoperative patients had considerably reduced symptoms compared to the preoperative period. The two surgical procedures, SVN and PNN, attributed to vidian-branch neurectomy have extremely few complications. However, EVN is more likely to cause dry eyes and palatal numbness, with no other serious complications. In patients with AR and CRSwNP, vidian or selective vidian neurectomy combined with functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) is more effective than conventional FESS (RQLQ: SMD = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.66-2.69, p < 0.001; VAS: SMD = 6.42, 95% CI = 4.78-8.06, p < 0.001). For patients who have both AR and asthma, SVN with pharyngeal branch excision is a potential treatment option.
CONCLUSIONS: EVN and vidian-branch neurectomy (including SVN and PNN) are effective treatments, but the former has a higher risk of complications. Additionally, vidian-branch neurectomy with FESS is beneficial for patients with mixed CRSwNP. SVN is a potential approach for patients with coexisting AR and asthma.

BACKGROUND: Nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) is characterized by rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, and sneezing, in the absence of systemic sensitization to allergens. For cases refractory to medical therapy and conservative surgical interventions, more targeted procedures, such as endoscopic vidian neurectomy (EVN) and posterior nasal neurectomy (PNN), including surgical (SPNN) and cryoablative (CPNN) methods, may reduce symptoms of NAR.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, side effect profile, and complication rate between EVN and PNN for NAR.
METHODS: A systematic review of primary articles that reported original patient data for either EVN or PNN was conducted using Embase, Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane databases since 2006, according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome of the study was an improvement in NAR symptom severity. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative side effects or complications.
RESULTS: In total, 58 articles met the search criteria with a total of 9 studies (including 2 RCTs) eligible for inclusion. There was a pooled sample of 229 NAR patients that underwent EVN (n = 65; 28.4%), SPNN (n = 50; 21.8%), or CPNN (n = 114; 49.8%). For all 3 techniques, there was a statistically significant improvement in nasal symptoms, particularly rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, and obstruction along with quality of life. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting prevented meta-analysis and direct comparison of efficacy. The pooled incidence of postoperative complications for EVN (n = 65), SPNN (n = 50), and CPNN (n = 70) was 30.8% versus 0% versus 2.9% for dry eye, 16.9% versus 0% versus 1.4% for palatal/cheek numbness, and 0% versus 6% versus 4.3% for bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS: EVN, SPNN, and CPNN are similarly efficacious for patients with NAR refractory to medical management. SPNN and CPNN are associated with lower rates of complications (dry eye and palatal/cheek numbness) compared with EVN.

Extraventricular neurocytoma (EVN) is a rare neurocytoma occurring in the brain parenchyma outside the ventricular system that shares similar biological behaviors and histopathologic characteristics with central neurocytoma. Reports of EVN localized in the brainstem and cerebellum are relatively uncommon. In addition, few cases with radiotherapy as the only treatment have been reported and their outcomes were unclear.
We report a case of pathologically confirmed EVN of the brainstem and cerebellum in a 43-year-old male who presented with unprovoked nausea and dizziness. The patient received radiotherapy only and showed a favorable outcome during the 2-year follow-up period.
These results suggest that patients with EVN who are treated with radiotherapy without surgery may have a favorable prognosis.

[This corrects the article on p. 552 in vol. 8, PMID: 28824449.].

暂无摘要。

Efferent circuits within the nervous system carry nerve impulses from the central nervous system to sensory end organs. Vestibular efferents originate in the brainstem and terminate on hair cells and primary afferent fibers in the semicircular canals and otolith organs within the inner ear. The function of this efferent vestibular system (EVS) in vestibular and motor coordination though, has proven difficult to determine, and remains under debate. We consider current literature that implicate corollary discharge from the spinal cord through the efferent vestibular nucleus (EVN), and hint at a potential role in overall vestibular plasticity and compensation. Hypotheses range from differentiating between passive and active movements at the level of vestibular afferents, to EVS activation under specific behavioral and environmental contexts such as arousal, predation, and locomotion. In this review, we summarize current knowledge of EVS circuitry, its effects on vestibular hair cell and primary afferent activity, and discuss its potential functional roles.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the effectiveness of PCA3 (prostate cancer antigen 3) and select comparators for improving initial or repeat biopsy decision making in men at risk for prostate cancer, or treatment choices in men with prostate cancer.
METHODS: MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cochrane Database and gray literature were searched from January 1990 through May 2012. Included studies were matched, and measured PCA3 and comparator(s) within a cohort. No matched analyses were possible. Differences in independent performance estimates between PCA3 and comparators were computed within studies. Studies were assessed for quality using QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) and for strength of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.
RESULTS: Among 1,556 publications identified, 34 observational studies were analyzed (24 addressed diagnostic accuracy and 13 addressed treatment decisions). Most studies were conducted in opportunistic cohorts of men referred for procedures and were not designed to answer key questions. Two study biases (partial verification and sampling) were addressed by analyses, allowing some conclusions to be drawn. PCA3 was more discriminatory than total prostate specific antigen increases (eg at an observed 50% specificity, summary sensitivities were 77% and 57%, respectively). Analyses indicated that this finding holds for initial and repeat biopsies, and that the markers were independent predictors. For all other biopsy decision making comparisons and associated health outcomes, strength of evidence was insufficient. For treatment decision making, strength of evidence was insufficient for all outcomes and comparators.
CONCLUSIONS: PCA3 had a higher diagnostic accuracy than total prostate specific antigen increases, but strength of evidence was low (limited confidence in effect estimates). Strength of evidence was insufficient to conclude that PCA3 testing leads to improved health outcomes. For all other outcomes and comparators, strength of evidence was insufficient.