Background and Objectives: Left atrial appendage closure is an alternative treatment to reduce thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation in whom oral anticoagulation (OAC) is contraindicated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the complications profiles of the LARIAT and AtriClip devices and perform a comparison between them based on the MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) database. Materials and Methods: The Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database was searched on 15 January 2023. For AtriClip, only reports regarding isolated procedures or procedures associated with minimally invasive ablation were included. Adverse effects and causes of death were defined based on the literature on the topic and the causes described in the reports. In total, 63 patients were included in the LARIAT group and 53 patients were included in the AtriClip group. Results: With the LARIAT device, the most common complication without device problems was pericardial effusion (n = 18, 52.9%), whereas this complication was not observed with AtriClip (p < 0.001). Postoperative bleeding was a second complication that occurred significantly more often in the LARIAT group—in 15 (44.1%) cases versus 1 (2.7%) case with AtriClip (p < 0.001). In addition, significant differences were found in the prevalence of stroke (LARIAT n = 0 vs. AtriClip n = 7, 18.9%, p = 0.012) and thrombus (LARIAT n = 2, 5.9% vs. n = 11, 29.7%, p = 0.013). Conclusions: Each type of left atrial appendage closure procedure is associated with device-specific requirements and complications that, if known, can be avoided.

Aim of the study. Ophthalmological symptoms are common in patients with Parkinson’s Disease (PD) and can be evaluated by the Visual Impairment in Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (VIPD-Q). This study aimed to assess the prevalence of ophthalmological symptoms in PD depending on the type of treatment used i.e. pharmacological or subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS). Material and methods. We performed a cross-sectional study. The data was gathered from a VIPD-Q and from medical records. Patients with PD were divided into two groups based on the type of treatment – pharmacological (control group, CG) (39 patients) or STN-DBS (40 patients). Results. The great majority of patients — 72 (91.1%) — experienced an ophthalmological symptom. The prevalence of three symptoms differed significantly between the groups. A burning sensation or a gritty feeling in the eyes occurred more often in patients in the STN-DBS group (40.0% vs. 15.4%; p = 0.015). On the other hand, the inability to read plain text on a coloured or grey background and problems with rapid changes of light intensity were more common in the CG group (38.5% vs. 15.0%, p = 0.018 and 28.2% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.039, respectively). Conclusions and clinical implications. The prevalence of ophthalmological symptoms in PD is high. Despite significant differences in the three symptoms, the overall prevalence of ophthalmological clinical features was similar in the evaluated groups. Aim of the study. Ophthalmological symptoms are common in patients with Parkinson’s Disease (PD) and can be evaluated by the Visual Impairment in Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (VIPD-Q). This study aimed to assess the prevalence of ophthalmological symptoms in PD depending on the type of treatment used i.e. pharmacological or subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS). Material and methods. We performed a cross-sectional study. The data was gathered from a VIPD-Q and from medical records. Patients with PD were divided into two groups based on the type of treatment – pharmacological (control group, CG) (39 patients) or STN-DBS (40 patients). Results. The great majority of patients — 72 (91.1%) — experienced an ophthalmological symptom. The prevalence of three symptoms differed significantly between the groups. A burning sensation or a gritty feeling in the eyes occurred more often in patients in the STN-DBS group (40.0% vs. 15.4%; p = 0.015). On the other hand, the inability to read plain text on a coloured or grey background and problems with rapid changes of light intensity were more common in the CG group (38.5% vs. 15.0%, p = 0.018 and 28.2% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.039, respectively). Conclusions and clinical implications. The prevalence of ophthalmological symptoms in PD is high. Despite significant differences in the three symptoms, the overall prevalence of ophthalmological clinical features was similar in the evaluated groups.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to establish whether implement ation of the ERAS protocol has a beneficial effect postoperatively after ileostomy reversal. Introduction: Loop ileostomy is commonly performed during anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision to protect the newly created anastomosis. Ileostomy reversal is performed after rectal anastomoses are completely healed and can be associated with complications. The use of the ERAS protocol in elective colorectal surgery has been shown to significantly reduce the complication rate and length of hospital stay without an increased readmission rate. Methods: After PROSPERO registration (CRD42023449551), a systematic review of the following databases was carried out: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus. This meta-analysis involved studies up to December 2023 without language restrictions. A random effects model meta-analysis was performed to assess complications, readmissions, and length of stay (LOS) in ileostomy reversal patients with and without ERAS protocol implementation. Results: Six articles were analyzed, and each study reported on the elements of the ERAS protocol. There was no significant difference between the ERAS and non-ERAS groups in terms of complications rate (OR = 0.98; 95%CI: 0.64–1.52; I² = 0%). Postoperative ileus was the most prevalent adverse event in both groups. The readmission rate did not differ significantly between the groups (OR = 1.77; 95%CI: 0.85–3.50, I² = 0%). In comparison to the control group, the LOS in the ERAS group was noticeably shorter (MD = −1.94; 95%CI: −3.38–−0.49; I² = 77%). Conclusions: Following the ERAS protocol can result in a shorter LOS and does not increase complications or readmission rates in patients undergoing ileostomy reversal. Thus, the ERAS protocol is recommended for clinical implementation.