Purpose: Intracranial mycotic aneurysms (IMAs), rare and often life-threatening, result from arterial wall infections typically caused by bacteria such as Staphylococcus and Streptococcus. The standard treatment for ruptured aneurysms is not well-defined and often individualized. This study investigates the efficacy of endovascular glue embolization in managing ruptured IMAs, based on our center’s experience. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted for ruptured IMAs treated with glue embolization between January 2016 and December 2023. The procedure involved aneurysm sac and parent vessel occlusion with glue delivery. Data included patient demographics, clinical presentations, and neuroimaging. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 3 months, and angiographic follow-up was conducted at 6 months. Results: The study included 28 patients, predominantly male (64.3%), with a mean age of 48 years. Headache was the primary symptom in 92.9% of cases, and positive blood/cerebro spinal fluid cultures were found in 82.14% of cases. All aneurysms were located in the distal circulation, primarily in the anterior circulation system. Glue embolization was successfully performed in all cases, achieving complete aneurysm sac and parent vessel obliteration. Follow-up at 3 months indicated mRS scores of 0 or 1 in 96.5% of cases. Six-month angiographic follow-up showed no aneurysm regrowth or new formations. Conclusion Endovascular glue embolization demonstrated high efficacy and safety in treating ruptured IMAs, with a 100% obliteration rate and favorable clinical outcomes in this single-center experience. Despite limitations such as its retrospective design and small sample size, the study supports glue embolization as a viable, less invasive alternative to traditional surgery. Further comparative studies are needed to confirm these findings and refine treatment approaches.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is associated with exaggerated cerebral response including emotional processing following visceral stimulation; though data on this issue is available in female IBS patients, it is scanty among males. Hence, we aimed to study brain response of male IBS patients following rectal balloon distension as compared to healthy controls using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Data between diarrhea and constipation predominant IBS (IBS-D and IBS-C) were also compared. METHODS: Rectal balloon distension threshold was assessed in 20 male IBS patients (10 IBS-C and 10 IBS-D) and 10 age-matched male healthy controls. Subsequently, fMRI on all the participants was performed at their respective rectal pain threshold. The fMRI data were analysed using the Statistical Parametric Mapping software. RESULTS: IBS patients showed greater cerebral activations in insula, middle temporal gyrus, and cerebellum in the left hemisphere compared to healthy controls. Neural activation was found in bilateral precuneus/superior parietal lobules in controls but not in patients with IBS. The brain activation differed among IBS-C and IBS-D patients; while the right mid-cingulate cortex was activated in IBS-C, the left inferior orbito-frontal cortex, left calcarine, and bilateral fusiform gyri were activated among patients with IBS-D following rectal balloon distension. CONCLUSIONS: Brain response to rectal balloon distension differed among male patients with IBS and controls and among patients with IBS-C and IBS-D. Differential activation among patients with IBS-C and IBS-D was seen in the brain regions controlling affective motivation, homeostatic emotions, and autonomic responses to pain.
Brain* ; Cerebellum ; Constipation ; Diarrhea ; Female ; Humans ; Irritable Bowel Syndrome* ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging* ; Male* ; Motivation ; Pain Threshold ; Parietal Lobe ; Temporal Lobe

Purpose: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a prevalent and distressing complication, especially in laparoscopic surgeries. This review compares the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV after laparoscopic surgery. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies that reported the efficacy (nausea and vomiting) at three postoperative time points T1 (0–2 hours), T2 (2–6 hours), T3 (6–24 hours) and safety (incidence of adverse effects). Meta-analysis of relative risk was performed using a random effect model and subgroup analysis based on factors such as antiemetic dose and timing of administration, type of surgery, and anesthetic agents. Results: Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were published between 2011 and 2022, involving 2,043 participants. Nineteen trials were included in the meta-analysis (efficacy, 17;safety, 11). The pooled risk ratio revealed that patients receiving palonosetron demonstrated significantly less likelihood of developing nausea and vomiting at various postoperative time points. Subgroup analysis indicated significantly less PONV when palonosetron was administered before intubation and in combination with isoflurane anesthesia. Headache, dizziness, constipation, and drowsiness were the most commonly reported. The safety profiles of palonosetron and ondansetron were comparable. Conclusion Palonosetron exhibits superior efficacy within the first 24 hours postoperatively and requires less rescue antiemetic intervention compared to ondansetron in laparoscopic surgery patients. Both demonstrate nearly comparable safety profiles. Future trials focusing on cardiac safety (QT interval) and cost consideration are needed.

Purpose: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a prevalent and distressing complication, especially in laparoscopic surgeries. This review compares the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV after laparoscopic surgery. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies that reported the efficacy (nausea and vomiting) at three postoperative time points T1 (0–2 hours), T2 (2–6 hours), T3 (6–24 hours) and safety (incidence of adverse effects). Meta-analysis of relative risk was performed using a random effect model and subgroup analysis based on factors such as antiemetic dose and timing of administration, type of surgery, and anesthetic agents. Results: Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were published between 2011 and 2022, involving 2,043 participants. Nineteen trials were included in the meta-analysis (efficacy, 17;safety, 11). The pooled risk ratio revealed that patients receiving palonosetron demonstrated significantly less likelihood of developing nausea and vomiting at various postoperative time points. Subgroup analysis indicated significantly less PONV when palonosetron was administered before intubation and in combination with isoflurane anesthesia. Headache, dizziness, constipation, and drowsiness were the most commonly reported. The safety profiles of palonosetron and ondansetron were comparable. Conclusion Palonosetron exhibits superior efficacy within the first 24 hours postoperatively and requires less rescue antiemetic intervention compared to ondansetron in laparoscopic surgery patients. Both demonstrate nearly comparable safety profiles. Future trials focusing on cardiac safety (QT interval) and cost consideration are needed.

Purpose: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a prevalent and distressing complication, especially in laparoscopic surgeries. This review compares the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV after laparoscopic surgery. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies that reported the efficacy (nausea and vomiting) at three postoperative time points T1 (0–2 hours), T2 (2–6 hours), T3 (6–24 hours) and safety (incidence of adverse effects). Meta-analysis of relative risk was performed using a random effect model and subgroup analysis based on factors such as antiemetic dose and timing of administration, type of surgery, and anesthetic agents. Results: Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were published between 2011 and 2022, involving 2,043 participants. Nineteen trials were included in the meta-analysis (efficacy, 17;safety, 11). The pooled risk ratio revealed that patients receiving palonosetron demonstrated significantly less likelihood of developing nausea and vomiting at various postoperative time points. Subgroup analysis indicated significantly less PONV when palonosetron was administered before intubation and in combination with isoflurane anesthesia. Headache, dizziness, constipation, and drowsiness were the most commonly reported. The safety profiles of palonosetron and ondansetron were comparable. Conclusion Palonosetron exhibits superior efficacy within the first 24 hours postoperatively and requires less rescue antiemetic intervention compared to ondansetron in laparoscopic surgery patients. Both demonstrate nearly comparable safety profiles. Future trials focusing on cardiac safety (QT interval) and cost consideration are needed.