RESUMO OBJETIVO Comparar as abordagens de tampão com tela (mesh plug), Lichtenstein, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) e totalmente extraperitoneal (TEP) em relação ao tempo de operação, seroma, infecção e recorrência no reparo de hérnias inguinais. MÉTODOS Estudos relevantes na literatura foram pesquisados nos bancos de dados Cochrane, PubMed e Embase. Além disso, a análise dos estudos clínicos controlados randomizados (RCTs) foi feita utilizando métodos recomendados pela Cochrane Collaboration. Os principais resultados, incluindo tempo de operação, seroma, infecção e recorrência, foram avaliados. RESULTADOS Um total de 38 RCTs com 3.255 pacientes foram incluídos na meta-análise. Além disso, a comparação entre mesh plug, Lichtenstein, TAPP e TEP mostrou que não havia diferenças significativas nos aspectos de tempo de operação, seroma, infecção e recorrência. CONCLUSÕES A meta-análise sugere que mesh plug, Lichtenstein, TAPP e TEP oferecem resultados comparáveis no reparo das hérnia inguinais em relação a tempo de operação, seroma, infecção e recorrência.

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE To compare Mesh-plug, Lichtenstein, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repairs in regards to operation time, seroma, infection, and recurrence of inguinal hernia repair. METHODS Relevant literature was searched in the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, and Embase. Furthermore, the analysis of randomized controlled studies (RCTs) was performed using methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The main outcomes including operation time, seroma, infection, and recurrence were evaluated. RESULTS A total of 38 RCTs with 3255 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In addition, the comparison between Mesh-plug, Lichtenstein, TAPP, and TEP showed the differences were not significant regarding operation time, seroma, infection, and recurrence. CONCLUSIONS Meta-analysis suggests that Mesh-plug, Lichtenstein, TAPP, and TEP are comparable in the outcomes of hernia repair, such as operation time, seroma, infection, and recurrence.

Abstract Background: Although OIP5-AS1 has been characterized as an oncogenic lncRNA in many types of cancer, its role and underlying mechanism in ovarian carcinoma (OC) remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the role of OIP5-AS1 in OC. Methods: OC tissues and non-tumor tissues (ovary tissues within 3 cm around tumors) were collected from 58 OC patients (age range 36 to 67 years old, mean age 51.4 ± 5.9 years old). The expression of OIP5-AS1 and snail in paired tissues were determined by RT-qPCR. The interaction between OIP5-AS1 and miR-34a was predicted by IntaRNA2.0 and confirmed by dual luciferase reporter assay. The effects of overexpression of OIP5-AS1 and miR-34a on the expression of snail were analyzed by RT-qPCR and Western blotting. Cell invasion and migration were analyzed by Transwell assay. Results: We observed that the expression of OIP5-AS1 and snail was upregulated and positively correlated with each other in OC. RNA–RNA interaction analysis showed that OIP5-AS1 might sponge miR-34a. In OC cells, overexpression of OIP5-AS1 resulted in the upregulated expression of snail, while overexpression of miR-34a downregulated the expression of snail. In addition, overexpression of miR-34a reduced the effects of overexpression of OIP5-AS1 on the expression of snail. In cell invasion and migration assay, overexpression of OIP5-AS1 and snail resulted in increased OC cell invasion and migration, while overexpression of miR-34a decreased OC cell invasion and migration. Moreover, overexpression of miR-34a attenuated the effects of OIP5-AS1 overexpression on OC cell invasion and migration. Conclusions: Therefore, OIP5-AS1 may upregulate snail expression in OC by sponging miR-34a to promote OC cell invasion and migration.