Galen medical journal · 2025
Impact of The COVID-19 Pandemic on Salivary Gland-related Healthcare Interventions; A Systematic Review And Meta-analysis :
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kiran Myle Akshay, Saeed Safa, Bin Nafisah Abeer, Alqarni Abdulaziz, Alotaibi Atheer Haif, Alqahtan Abdulaziz Saleh, Aljadaan Hend, Osayl Haya Bin, Alsane Maha, Alsuhail Norah, Alrawaf Nouf, Albalawi Raghad Sanad, Alanazi Samar Ayed, Aloufi Raneem
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants has raised concerns regarding their potential impact on perioperative outcomes. Its effect on patients undergoing surgery for salivary gland diseases remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on salivary gland-related healthcare interventions, including cancer treatments, sialendoscopy procedures, and parotid surgery outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (2019-2025) for studies reporting pre- and during-COVID data. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool odds ratios (ORs) for intervention outcomes.
RESULTS: Four studies (n=7,740 participants) were included. The pooled OR for salivary gland interventions during versus pre-COVID was 1.08 (95% CI: 0.88-1.33, P=0.45), indicating no significant change, with moderate heterogeneity (I²=46%). Subgroup analyses revealed increased odds of wound dehiscence post-parotid surgery (OR=4.40, 95% CI: 1.18-16.40) but no significant differences in delayed cancer diagnosis or urgent sialendoscopy.
CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly alter overall salivary gland intervention rates or adverse events, though some procedural complications increased non-significantly. Limited evidence underscores the need for larger, standardized studies. While this shows that surgeons maintained quality of practice in this era during the COVID-19.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (2019-2025) for studies reporting pre- and during-COVID data. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool odds ratios (ORs) for intervention outcomes.
RESULTS: Four studies (n=7,740 participants) were included. The pooled OR for salivary gland interventions during versus pre-COVID was 1.08 (95% CI: 0.88-1.33, P=0.45), indicating no significant change, with moderate heterogeneity (I²=46%). Subgroup analyses revealed increased odds of wound dehiscence post-parotid surgery (OR=4.40, 95% CI: 1.18-16.40) but no significant differences in delayed cancer diagnosis or urgent sialendoscopy.
CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly alter overall salivary gland intervention rates or adverse events, though some procedural complications increased non-significantly. Limited evidence underscores the need for larger, standardized studies. While this shows that surgeons maintained quality of practice in this era during the COVID-19.