<b><i>Background:</i></b> Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in December 2019, it has spread rapidly and widely, bringing great psychological pressure to the public. In order to prevent the epidemic, traffic lockdown was required in many areas of China, which led to inconvenience of treatment for dialysis patients. This study was conducted to explore the psychological distress and the psychological demand induced by CO­VID-19 in the patients undergoing dialysis and compare the difference between hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients during the traffic lockdown period. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Questionnaires were given to the dialysis patients in the West China Hospital of Sichuan University. The Impact of Event Scale (IES) was used to investigate the patients’ trauma-related distress in response to COVID-19. <b><i>Results:</i></b> 232 eligible respondents were enrolled in this cross-section study, consisting of 156 PD patients and 76 HD patients. The median IES score for all the enrolled patients was 8.00 (2.00–19.00), which belonged to the subclinical dimension of post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). HD patients had a significant higher IES score than PD patients (11.50 vs. 8.00) (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.05). HD patients already got more psychological support from the medical staff. According to IES scores, 22.4% HD patients and 13.4% PD patients were classified as having moderate or severe PTSS, which need psychological support (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.05). But more patients of both groups considered psychological support was necessary (HD: 50%, PD: 45.5%) (<i>p</i> &#x3e; 0.05). In the multivariate regression analysis, we found that dialysis vintage, the impact of COVID-19 on the severity of illness and daily life, and confidence in overcoming the disease contributed to IES score (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.05). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> HD patients had more severe trauma-related stress symptoms than PD patients. When major public healthy events occurred, careful psychological estimate and sufficient psychological support should be provided to the dialysis patients, especially to the HD patients.

The current consensus recommended the peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) techniques based on the patients’ anesthesia situation and previous abdominal surgery. However, the research comparing of all the existing PDC techniques is lacking. The objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of PDC techniques by network meta-analysis (NMA). A systematic review of databases was conducted to identify eligible studies. NMA was used to estimate the ranking for endpoints. Our NMA included 41 studies (9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 32 observational trials) and enrolled 3902 patients, comparing three techniques: the laparoscopic catheterization (LC), open surgery catheterization (OSC), and percutaneous catheterization (PC). NMA in RCTs showed OSC had the highest incidence of catheter mechanical dysfunction, PC and LC were very similar, but this result had no statistical difference. NMA in observational studies showed that LC had the highest 1-year catheter survival but without statistical difference (LC vs. OSC: odds ratio (OR) 1.75, 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 0.90–3.40; PC vs. OSC: OR 1.55, 95% CrIs 0.80–2.97; PC vs. LC: OR 0.88, 95% CrIs 0.54–1.44). OSC had the lowest incidence for bleeding. The complications of leakage, peritonitis, and exit/tunnel infection were inconclusive due to the inconsistent results between RCTs and observational studies. Our NMA revealed LC may have the best 1-year catheter survival. PC and LC might be efficacious in lowering the mechanical dysfunction. OSC had the lowest incidence for bleeding. More RCTs with larger scale and higher quality are needed in order to obtain more credible evidence.

BackgroundSplenectomy was traditionally performed to dissect the splenic hilar lymph nodes. Considering the important functions of spleen, whether splenectomy would bring beneficial to gastric cancer patients is debatable. This meta-analysis aimed to make an updated evaluation on the effectiveness and safety of splenectomy.MethodsLiterature searches were performed to identify eligible RCTs concerning effectiveness or safety of splenectomy with gastrectomy from PubMed, MEDLINE, CBMdisc, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two reviewers completed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment independently. The meta-analyses were performed by RevMan 5.3.ResultsA total of 971 patients from four studies were included (485 in splenectomy group and 486 in spleen preservation group). Splenectomy did not increase 5-year overall survival rate (RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.96, 1.16) or increase postoperative mortality (RR=1.21, 95% CI: 0.41, 3.54). However, the analysis demonstrated that gastrectomy with splenectomy had significantly higher incidence of postoperative complications (RR=1.80, 95% CI: 1.33, 2.45). No significant differences were found in terms of the number of resected lymph nodes and reoperation rate; however, splenectomy had a tendency to prolong the duration of surgery and hospital stays. Subgroup analyses indicated that splenectomy could not increase overall survival rate for either whole or proximal gastric cancer. Sensitivity analyses also found similar results compared to the primary analyses.ConclusionsSplenectomy cannot benefit the survival of patients with tumor located at lesser curvature, and it could instead increase postoperative morbidity.

Background:Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in December 2019, it has spread rapidly and widely,