Search

Purpose: COVID-19 continues to be an urgent World issue. Receptors of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), gateway of SARS-CoV-2, are present in the lungs, bladder, prostate, and testicles. Therefore, these organs face high risk of damage caused by the virus and this mechanism may explain non-respiratory symptoms of the disease. Materials and Methods: This systematic review, guided by the PRIMSA statement, was proposed to elucidate possible urological complications of COVID-19. Searches were carried out in Medline (PubMed), Cochrane (CENTRAL), Embase, MedRxiv and LILACS. Bias analysis was made using the specific Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for each study design. Results: Search was carried out until April 2022, and 8,477 articles were identified. Forty-nine of them were included in this systematic review. There is evidence that lower urinary tract symptoms and acute scrotum may be signs of COVID-19 in men, although in a small proportion. Also, the disease may have a transitory impact on male fertility, evidenced by several alterations in sperm counts. However, it must be clarified whether this impact is transitory, or may last for longer periods. Several patients showed reduction of total value of testosterone. Two authors linked low levels of testosterone with worse outcomes of COVID-19, suggesting that the hormone may be used as an early biomarker of the severity of the disease. Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted by semen. Conclusion: This systematic review identified possible repercussions of COVID-19 in the urinary as well as in the male reproductive system.

This study aims to estimate whether prophylactic cervical lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer influences the short- and long-term results through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Twenty-eight articles were selected in this systematic review, encompassing 9180 patients. Prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer should be performed with caution, as it is associated with worse short-term results compared to traditional two-field lymphadenectomy and does not improve long-term survival.

Nowadays, there is still no consensus about the benefits of adding neck lymphadenectomy to the traditional two-fields esophagectomy. An extended lymphadenectomy could potentially increase operation time and the risks for postoperative complications. However, extended lymphadenectomy allows resection of cervical nodes at risk for metastases, potentially increasing long-term survival rates. This study aims to estimate whether cervical prophylactic lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer influences short- and long-term outcomes through a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Methods A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central, and Lilacs (BVS). The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies that compare two-field vs. three-field esophagectomy; (2) adults (>18 years); (3) articles that analyze short- or long-term outcomes; and (4) clinical trials or cohort studies. The results were summarized by forest plots, with effect size (ES) or risk difference (RD) and 95% CI. Results Twenty-five articles were selected, comprising 8,954 patients. Three-field lymphadenectomy was associated to higher operation time (ES: -1.51; 95%CI -1.84, −1.18) and higher blood loss (ES: -0.24; 95%CI: −0.37, −0.11). Also, neck lymphadenectomy inputs additional risk for pulmonary complications (RD: 0.03; 95%CI: 0.01, 0.05). No difference was noted for morbidity (RD: 0.01; 95%CI: −0.01, 0.03); leak (−0.02; 95%CI: −0.07, 0.03); postoperative mortality (RD: 0.00; 95%CI: −0.00, 0.01), and hospital stay (ES: -0.05; 95%CI -0.20, 0.10). Three-field lymphadenectomy allowed higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD: -1.51; 95%CI -1.84, −1.18), but did not increase the overall survival (HR: 1.11; 95%CI: 0.96, 1.26). Conclusion Prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer should be performed with caution once it is associated with poorer short-term outcomes compared to traditional two-field lymphadenectomy and does not improve long-term survival. Future esophageal cancer studies should determine the subgroup of patients who could benefit from prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy in long-term outcomes.