Objectives: The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy of prophylactic desmopressin administered via intranasal or intravenous routes in reducing intraoperative bleeding during nasal surgery. We conducted a meta-analysis of relevant literature to investigate the role of preoperative desmopressin in minimizing bleeding complications associated with nasal surgery. Data Sources: Pubmed, SCOPUS, Google scholar, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials Design& Setting: We screened the relevant literature published before February 2023. Nine articles that compared the perioperative use of desmopressin (treatment group) with a placebo or no treatment (control group) were included for this analysis of outcomes, which included intraoperative bleeding and postoperative morbidity in nasal surgery. Results: The treatment group showed significant improvement in intraoperative bleeding, surgical field, and surgeon satisfaction compared to the control group. However, prophylactic use of desmopressin was associated with elevated blood pressure and decreased serum sodium levels. Despite this, no significant adverse effects were reported in the included studies. Subgroup analyses comparing the route of administration (IV vs intranasal) and type of surgery (rhinoplasty vs ESS) showed that desmopressin had a beneficial effect on intraoperative bleeding and surgical field, regardless of the route of administration or type of surgery. Conclusion: The prophylactic use of desmopressin for nasal surgery effectively reduced intraoperative bleeding, improved the surgical field, and increased surgeon satisfaction with no significant adverse effects reported. However, caution should be exercised when administering desmopressin as it may cause an elevation in postoperative blood pressure in patients with cardiopulmonary problems. Level of Evidence: Ia

Aims: We compared the prognostic utility of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) and elective neck dissection (END) in patients with early (T1–2) oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and clinically N0 necks. Methods: We searched the PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases up to March 2022. The hazard ratios (HRs), Kaplan–Meier curves, p-values, and survival outcomes were extracted, along with all study characteristics. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: Twelve studies involving 10,583 patients were finally included. We found no significant differences in overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.1226; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9263; 1.3604), disease-free survival (DFS) (HR = 1.0797; 95% CI: 0.8765; 1.3300) or disease-specific survival (DSS) (HR = 0.8652; 95% CI: 0.6531; 1.1462) between the two groups. Heterogeneity was not detected in pooled OS, DFS, and DSS analyses (all I2 < 50). In subgroup analyses by follow-up period (3, 5, and 10 years), SNB and END had similar prognostic value. Conclusions: We found no significant difference in OS, DFS, or DSS between patients with early OSCC and clinical N0 necks evaluated via SNB and END, suggesting that SNB might be a valuable alternative to END for the management of early stage clinically node-negative OSCC.