resource

Journal Article; Systematic Review; Meta-Analysis; Comparative Study; Review

Journal Article; Systematic Review; Meta-Analysis; Comparative Study; Review: explore 15 source-linked works published from 2026 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: pubmed. Collection updated 2026-09-15. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

PubMed2026

Efficacy and safety of thulium fiber laser versus conventional holmium:YAG laser in anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Anatomical endoscopic enucleation is an established treatment for benign prostatic obstruction. Whether thulium fiber laser enucleation (ThuFLEP) improves outcomes over conventional holmium:YAG laser enucleation (HoLEP) remains uncertain. We compared the efficacy and safety of ThuFLEP versus non-MOSES-modulated HoLEP. METHODS: We performed a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of randomised and comparative cohort studies comparing ThuFLEP and conventional HoLEP in adult men. Six databases were searched. Outcomes included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS quality-of-life score, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual volume, hospital stay, and complications. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed with RoB 2/ROBINS-I and GRADE. RESULTS: Seven non-overlapping comparative populations in eight publications included 3,509 patients. ThuFLEP was associated with a small statistically significant reduction in IPSS at 3 months (mean difference [MD] -1.04 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.81 to -0.28) of uncertain clinical relevance. Qmax differences were small and directionally inconsistent across follow-up (favouring HoLEP at 3 months and ThuFLEP at 6 and 12 months) and derived mainly from retrospective cohorts, with neutral randomised subgroups. Stress and urge urinary incontinence were less frequent overall (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96, and RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.68), but both estimates depended on one large registry cohort and were not robust to its exclusion. Most other complications and hospital stay showed no clear between-group difference. Limitations include few studies per outcome, heterogeneity, sparse safety events, inconsistent prostate-specific antigen reporting, and mostly low/very low certainty evidence. CONCLUSION: ThuFLEP and conventional HoLEP are clinically comparable with no definitive superiority of either laser. Platform selection should be individualised according to surgeon expertise, institutional resources, and patient characteristics. Future trials should standardise cost-effectiveness outcomes and investigate whether the distinct laser-tissue interactions impact adenoma clearance, PSA reduction, enucleation completeness, and long-term durability.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy and safety of Vertebral Body Sliding Osteotomy (VBSO) versus Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is an established treatment for complex cervical myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), yet it carries risks of dural injury and graft-related failure. Vertebral body sliding osteotomy (VBSO) is a novel technique that avoids direct OPLL manipulation by translating the vertebral body anteriorly to enlarge the spinal canal. Although early studies suggest VBSO may reduce complications, evidence remains limited to retrospective cohorts from the technique's developers, with no high-level synthesis directly comparing it to ACCF. We therefore conducted this meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters between VBSO and ACCF, while critically evaluating the certainty of the evidence and its generalizability. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (through June 2025) identified four retrospective cohort studies (449 patients; VBSO n = 209, ACCF n = 240). A critical limitation of the included evidence is that all studies originated from a single institution (Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea) with overlapping enrollment periods (2006-2020), increasing the risk of duplicate patient cohorts. Furthermore, the first author (D.-H. Lee) is the same across all included studies, introducing substantial surgeon-expertise bias. Outcomes included neurological recovery, functional outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Neurological recovery and functional outcomes were comparable between groups. ACCF showed slightly higher postoperative JOA scores (MD -0.59, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.22; p < 0.01), though the clinical relevance is uncertain. VBSO was associated with reduced risks of graft subsidence (RR 0.23; p < 0.01), pseudarthrosis (RR 0.25; p < 0.01), revision surgery (RR 0.17; p < 0.01), and neurological deterioration (RR 0.17; p = 0.02). CSF leakage appeared to be less frequent with VBSO, but the difference was not statistically significant. VBSO was also associated with greater postoperative cervical lordosis and shorter hospital stays. However, these findings must be interpreted with extreme caution: leave-one-out sensitivity analyses revealed that the results for postoperative JOA score, neurological deterioration, and pseudarthrosis were fragile and driven by a single large study, meaning these apparent advantages may not be robust. In addition, GRADE assessment revealed very low certainty across all assessed outcomes. Given the very low certainty of evidence, the preliminary nature of the available data, the fragility of several key findings, and the critical limitations of the underlying studies (single institution, overlapping patient cohorts, developer bias, and systematic imbalance in follow-up duration), the observed differences should be considered hypothesis-generating rather than definitive. VBSO should not be considered a proven superior alternative to ACCF based on the current evidence. Prospective, multicenter, international studies with balanced follow-up durations conducted by independent surgical teams are required before broader adoption can be recommended.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ibuprofen versus acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in pediatric populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of their efficacy.

UNLABELLED: Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the most widely used analgesics in pediatric practice for the management of acute mild-to-moderate pain. Despite their widespread use, the comparative analgesic efficacy of these two agents in children remains a subject of ongoing debate, with existing evidence largely derived from heterogeneous clinical settings and small individual trials. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials comparing the analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen versus acetaminophen in pediatric populations with acute mild-to-moderate pain. A systematic literature search was conducted up to May 2026 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-Children and Adolescents (PRISMA-C) 2026 reporting guideline. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing ibuprofen with acetaminophen in children and adolescents (defined as individuals aged 0 to < 18 years) with acute pain, reporting at least one extractable efficacy outcome. Continuous outcomes were synthesized as standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) using random-effects models; dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Eight randomized controlled trials enrolling 1325 participants were included. Three pediatric trials contributed to the primary continuous pain outcome meta-analysis (n = 196 analyzable participants), yielding a pooled SMD of - 0.28 (95% CI - 0.57 to 0.00; p = 0.052; I2 = 0%), indicating a small effect favoring ibuprofen that did not reach conventional statistical significance. Given the small number of contributing studies (k = 3), the I2 statistic should be interpreted with caution as it has limited power to detect heterogeneity in this context. For the dichotomous pain freedom outcome (2 trials, n = 114), no significant difference was observed (pooled RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.53-1.99; p = 0.93; I2 = 0%). A prespecified sensitivity analysis including an adult soft-tissue injury trial attenuated the pooled effect toward the null (SMD - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.09; p = 0.23; I2 = 36.6%). Narrative synthesis of additional studies generally demonstrated comparable analgesic efficacy between the two agents across postoperative and outpatient pediatric settings. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as low for both primary outcomes, primarily due to imprecision and indirectness. CONCLUSION: Current evidence from randomized controlled trials does not demonstrate a superiority of ibuprofen over acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in children. Both agents appear to provide clinically meaningful analgesia across heterogeneous pediatric pain settings. The clinical choice between agents should be guided by individual patient factors, including contraindications to NSAIDs, the inflammatory nature of the pain etiology, and patient-specific characteristics. The low certainty of evidence underscores the need for adequately powered, methodologically rigorous trials to definitively establish the comparative efficacy of these two analgesics in the pediatric population. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the two most widely used non-opioid analgesics for acute mild-to-moderate pain in children, and both are recommended as first-line agents by major international guidelines. • Prior meta-analyses in mixed pediatric-adult populations have suggested a modest analgesic advantage of ibuprofen over acetaminophen, but pediatric-specific evidence has remained limited and methodologically heterogeneous. WHAT IS NEW: • This systematic review and meta-analysis, restricted to randomized controlled trials in pediatric populations, found that ibuprofen showed a small effect favoring pain reduction compared with acetaminophen (SMD - 0.28, p = 0.052), although this did not reach conventional statistical significance. • The analgesic advantage of ibuprofen may be more pronounced in pain etiologies with a significant inflammatory component (e.g., fractures). At the same time, both agents appear broadly equivalent in most other acute pediatric pain settings, supporting individualized analgesic selection based on clinical context and patient-specific factors.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Robot-assisted versus manual percutaneous vascular interventions across vascular territories: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Robot-assisted percutaneous vascular intervention (R-PVI) has expanded beyond coronary procedures, but previous reviews were largely coronary-focused and observational. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) warrant broader reassessment of R-PVI versus manual percutaneous vascular intervention (M-PVI) across vascular territories. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from database inception to January 31, 2026, following PRISMA guidelines. RCTs and observational studies including ≥10 adult patients in total were eligible. Comparative studies informed primary analyses, while single-arm studies provided supportive evidence. Primary outcomes were clinical success rate and major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events (MACE) rate. Secondary outcomes included mortality rate, technical success rate, procedural time metrics, contrast volume, and radiation exposure. Random-effects models were used. Forty studies were included: 3 RCTs, 10 comparative observational studies, and 27 single-arm observational studies, comprising 3,870 patients undergoing R-PVI and 1,142 undergoing M-PVI. Comparative analyses showed similar clinical success rates (RR 1.00, P = 0.46), MACE rates (RR 0.72, P = 0.43), and mortality. Single-arm pooled estimates for clinical and technical success were 98.76% and 96.09%, respectively. R-PVI prolonged total procedure time overall (MD 15.92 min, P = 0.01), with consistent increases in the neurovascular, RCT, and non-RCT subgroups. Fluoroscopy time was also longer (MD 1.91 min, P = 0.04), mainly in the RCT subgroup (MD 2.83 min, P = 0.001). In contrast, intravascular intervention time was unchanged overall and in RCTs, but was prolonged in non-RCTs (MD 8.72 min, P = 0.006). Operator radiation exposure was markedly reduced (MD -33.97 μSv, P < 0.001), whereas patient radiation exposure and contrast volume were similar. R-PVI appears feasible and safe across selected vascular procedures. Its clearest benefit is reduced operator radiation exposure, whereas lower whole-procedure efficiency remains its main limitation.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Sutureless versus renorrhaphy in robot-assisted off-clamp partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The necessity of routine parenchymal renorrhaphy during off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare perioperative, functional, safety, and oncological outcomes between sutureless and conventional renorrhaphy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Comparative studies evaluating sutureless versus conventional renorrhaphy during purely off-clamp RAPN were included. Trifecta achievement was the primary outcome. Random-effects models were used for pooled analyses, with subgroup analysis according to study design. RESULTS: Four studies involving 787 patients, including one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and three propensity score-matched (PSM) studies, were included. The overall pooled estimate showed no statistically significant difference in Trifecta achievement (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.41), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 86.5%). The PSM studies favored the sutureless approach (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.52), whereas the RCT yielded an RR of 0.97 (95% CI 0.92-1.04) and met the prespecified noninferiority criterion without demonstrating superiority. The sutureless approach was associated with a smaller perioperative eGFR decline (MD - 3.89, 95% CI - 6.16 to - 1.62), while no significant difference was observed in eGFR at 3 months. No statistically significant differences were identified in major complications, blood transfusion, or positive surgical margins; urinary and vascular complications were sparsely reported. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients undergoing purely off-clamp RAPN, randomized evidence supports the noninferiority of a strategy that omits routine parenchymal renorrhaphy while permitting clinically necessary selective repair, but does not demonstrate superiority. Favorable estimates from PSM studies remain vulnerable to intraoperative treatment-selection bias. Current evidence is insufficient to determine whether omission of renorrhaphy affects urinary complications, long-term renal function, or oncological outcomes. REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered prospectively in PROSPERO (CRD420261435995).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Robotic-assisted transbronchial biopsy versus computed tomography-guided transthoracic needle biopsy for peripheral pulmonary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct comparative studies.

Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) and computed tomography-guided transthoracic biopsy (CTTB) are competing strategies for sampling peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). Whether they differ in yield or safety is uncertain. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review restricted to direct comparisons. We searched MEDLINE, Europe PMC, Scopus, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 7 July 2026 for studies directly comparing RAB with CTTB in adults with PPLs. The primary outcome was strict 2024 American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians diagnostic yield. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I and certainty with GRADE. A cohort-genealogy step identified, per outcome, the largest set of cohorts sharing no patients; only that set was pooled, with Hartung-Knapp and Mantel-Haenszel sensitivity analyses. Five retrospective studies from one US health system were eligible. Four share patients; at most three cohorts are mutually independent. Across those three, diagnostic yield was comparable (risk ratio [RR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.06; I²=24%; Hartung-Knapp 0.87-1.13), with an identical relative effect under strict and intermediate definitions although absolute yields fell from 88% to 74-84% under strict criteria. Pneumothorax requiring a chest tube and/or admission was about three-quarters less frequent with RAB across all three cohorts (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14-0.46; I²=0%; Hartung-Knapp 0.07-0.96). Strict yield (RR 0.99) and any pneumothorax (RR 0.06) were reported by two cohorts each and neither survives the few-studies correction. RAB took about 50 min longer than CTTB where same-session staging endobronchial ultrasound was counted in the robotic time, but only about 8 min longer than CTTB where it was not. Only one cohort reported yield by lesion size category and none reported yield by bronchus sign or lung zone, so lesion-level subgroups could not be pooled. Certainty was low for pleural complications and very low elsewhere. Low-certainty evidence indicates that RAB is associated with fewer pleural complications, with no statistically detectable difference in diagnostic yield; equivalence was not formally established. Because all evidence is retrospective, confined to one health system, and almost never stratified by lesion size or accessibility, these findings are hypothesis-generating and require a multicenter randomized trial.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacokinetically guided and body surface area-based 5-fluorouracil dosing in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Body surface area (BSA)-based 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) dosing remains the standard in colorectal cancer despite substantial interpatient pharmacokinetic variability, which may lead to underexposure, treatment failure, or severe toxicity. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether pharmacokinetically guided 5-FU dosing improves efficacy and safety compared with conventional BSA-based dosing. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to the final search date. The search identified 1,802 records: PubMed/MEDLINE, 47; Embase, 118; and Scopus, 1,637 records. Comparative randomized and non-randomized studies evaluating pharmacokinetically guided, area under the curve-guided, or therapeutic drug monitoring-based 5-FU dosing versus BSA-based dosing in colorectal cancer were included. Random-effects models were employed. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: Five studies comprising 809 unique patients were included. Across the primary severe-toxicity analysis, the pooled denominator was 1,338 reported observations, including 625 in the PK-guided 5-FU dosing arm and 713 in the BSA-based 5-FU dosing arm, because one study reported severe toxicity by treatment cycle rather than by patient. PK-guided dosing was associated with lower severe or grade ≥ 3 toxicity (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33-0.76; P = 0.001; I²=79%). PK-guided dosing was also associated with a higher objective response rate (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.24-1.80; P < 0.0001) and disease control rate (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07-1.30; P = 0.001). Severe diarrhea was reduced (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.18-0.62; P = 0.0006), whereas mucositis, neutropenia/leukopenia, and hand-foot syndrome were not significantly different between dosing strategies. CONCLUSION: PK-guided 5-FU dosing was associated with lower severe toxicity and diarrhea and higher objective response and disease-control rates than conventional BSA-based dosing. However, the evidence was derived from a small and clinically heterogeneous group of studies, and progression-free or overall-survival benefits could not be established. The findings apply predominantly to metastatic colorectal cancer treated with infusional 5-FU within FOLFOX- or FOLFIRI-based regimens. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable. This study was a systematic review and metaanalysis, and not a clinical trial.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of EVA71 vaccine in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Enterovirus 71 (EV-A71) is a principal cause of hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD), potentially leading to severe neurological complications in children. Inactivated EV-A71 vaccines have been introduced. This study compares the immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of EV-A71 vaccines versus placebo in pediatric populations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Following a PROSPERO-registered protocol, RCTs involving EV-A71 in children were identified via PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two independent reviewers performed screening, extraction, and RoB assessments (RoB 2.0). RESULTS: Five phase III RCTs involving 36,659 children were included. EV-A71 vaccination significantly increased seropositivity across follow-up periods, including early (RR 5.8), medium-term (RR 3.09), and long-term (RR 2.95) response. Seroconversion was significantly higher in the vaccinated group (pooled RR 13.04, 95% CI 2.80-60.61; p < 0.001). Geometric mean titers, analyzed using the ratio of means approach, were significantly higher in the vaccinated group during early and medium-term follow-up. Vaccine efficacy against EV-A71-associated HFMD exceeded 98% (pooled RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.09; p = 0.0028; I2 = 50%). Solicited local and systemic adverse events were mild and comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: Inactivated EV-A71 vaccines robust immunogenicity, high clinical efficacy, and an acceptable safety profile in children. Future studies should explore long-term protection, booster schedules, and multivalent formulations against non-EV-A71 serotypes.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Virtual surgical planning-assisted versus free-hand head and neck reconstruction: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and a novel classification.

Virtual surgical planning (VSP)-assisted reconstruction is increasingly used as an alternative to conventional free-hand (FH) techniques in mandibular and maxillary free-flap reconstruction. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared clinical outcomes and proposed a Reconstruction Complexity-Completeness classification. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and reference lists were searched from inception to 20 June 2026. Comparative studies were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analyses used restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Hartung-Knapp adjustment. Forty-two studies included 2763 patients (1204 VSP; 1559 FH). VSP significantly reduced operative time (33 studies; MD -64.75 min, 95% CI -83.51 to -46.00), ischemia time (15 studies; MD -37.40 min, 95% CI -48.97 to -25.82), and hospital stay (16 studies; MD -1.75 days, 95% CI -3.43 to -0.08). VSP was associated with significantly lower odds of bony non-union (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.16-0.59) and malocclusion (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.64), whereas flap loss, surgical site infection, and plate exposure did not differ significantly. VSP-assisted reconstruction was associated with improved operative efficiency, shorter hospitalization, and lower odds of bony non-union and malocclusion, while no statistically significant differences were detected in flap loss, surgical site infection, or plate exposure. The proposed classification may support complexity-adjusted reporting and comparison.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Gonadal function and fertility outcomes after orchiopexy versus orchiectomy for testicular torsion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To review the early and late changes in hormonal profiles, semen parameters, and clinical outcomes in patients treated with orchiopexy versus orchiectomy for testicular torsion. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and other databases, following PRISMA guidelines. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: FSH, LH, testosterone, inhibin-B, and semen parameters. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Statistical analysis was performed using the random-effects model. RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 538 participants (197 orchiectomy, 341 orchiopexy) were included. Orchiectomy was associated with a significant increase in FSH (SMD: 1.63, P < 0.0001) and LH (SMD: 1.31, P < 0.0001) compared to orchiopexy. However, testosterone (MD: 0.31 ng/mL; P = 0.4) and inhibin-B (SMD: -0.14; P = 0.87) levels were comparable between groups. Regarding semen parameters, orchiectomy resulted in a significant reduction in sperm concentration (MD: -18 million/mL, P = 0.01). No significant differences were found in sperm count (MD: 13.9 million; P = 0.43), normal morphology (MD: 4.97%; P = 0.12), or total motility (MD: 4.05%; P = 0.49). The pooled rate for ipsilateral atrophy following orchiopexy was 38%, which likely depends on ischemia duration. CONCLUSION: Surgical choice in testicular torsion does not significantly affect the overall hormonal balance or most semen parameters due to compensatory mechanisms of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis. Clinical decisions should consider individual case factors, as we lack reliable data on subsequent paternity rates.

Male↗

PubMed2026

Retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible and navigable suction access sheaths vs mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large upper urinary tract stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and perioperative outcomes of contemporary flexible and navigable suction access sheath-assisted retrograde intrarenal surgery (FANS-RIRS) against percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the management of large upper urinary tract stones, as despite technological advances in RIRS such as high-powered lasers and FANS that have substantially enhanced its performance, current guidelines continue to recommend PCNL as first-line treatment for renal stones >2cm. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies performing direct comparisons of FANS-RIRS against PCNL in adult patients until September 2025. Primary outcomes included stone-free rates (SFRs) and need for ancillary procedures. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of postoperative hospitalisation, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies (three randomised control trials, seven retrospective cohort studies) comprising 2347 patients were included; preoperative stone sizes were predominantly 2-3 cm. All PCNL procedures in the studies included were performed as mini-PCNL. The SFRs for FANS-RIRS were comparable with mini-PCNL across all stone sizes (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.17) and stones ≥2 cm (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60-1.08), with low heterogeneity. Ancillary procedures rates were similar (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.61-2.44). FANS-RIRS was associated with significantly fewer overall complications, specifically smaller haemoglobin decline, need for transfusion, and shorter hospital stay. However, mini-PCNL demonstrated shorter operative times for stones ≥2 cm. Urosepsis rates were low and similar between both groups. Limitations include predominance of Asian studies, variability of practice, and inclusion of non-randomised studies. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary FANS-RIRS achieves SFRs comparable to mini-PCNL even for 2-3 cm stones, while offering superior safety profiles and shorter hospitalisation; this supports FANS-RIRS as a viable primary treatment in selected patients.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for gallbladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is increasingly being used in gallbladder cancer (GBC) for radical tumour extirpation. However, there are conflicting results on the morbidity outcomes following MIS. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the post-operative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing radical surgery for GBC between MIS and open surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Studies comparing MIS (laparoscopic, robotic or both techniques) to open surgery were included. The databases of MEDLINE, Cochrane and EMBASE were searched from 2001 till March 2025. The primary end point was post-operative morbidity and mortality. The secondary end points were hospital stay, blood loss, operative time and R1 resection rates. Random effect models were used for analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies (laparoscopic [n = 19], robotic [n = 6] or both [n = 7]) involving 8568 (MIS = 3287 and open = 5281) patients were included. For overall and major morbidity (Clavian-Dindo >/ = III), the odds ratio (OR) of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.46-0.78) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52-1.0) respectively was obtained, favouring the MIS approach. Similarly, MIS showed lower odds for mortality [OR:0.62 (95% CI: 0.40-0.95)] compared to open surgery. MIS was associated with shorter hospital stay (less by mean of 3 days) and lesser blood loss (less by mean of 115 ml) but longer operative time (higher by mean of 5.8 min) and higher R1 resection rates (OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.05-1.71). Oncological outcomes, however, were comparable. The certainty of evidence was very low to low across the studies. CONCLUSION: MIS for GBC was associated with relatively lower post operative morbidity and mortality with similar oncological outcomes but with a small but heightened risk of margin positive (R1) resection, especially in primary GBC. The certainty of evidence was very low to low across the included studies. Future prospective studies are needed to overcome the clinical heterogeneity and possible selection bias.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Stapled versus hand-sewn intestinal anastomosis in pediatric surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal anastomosis is a core procedure in pediatric gastrointestinal surgery, performed for conditions such as necrotizing enterocolitis, intestinal atresia, Hirschsprung's disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. Although stapled anastomosis (SA) may improve operative efficiency, its safety and effectiveness compared with hand-sewn anastomosis (HA) in children remain uncertain. This meta-analysis compared clinical outcomes of SA and HA in pediatric patients. METHODS: The study followed PRISMA guidelines and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251177257). A systematic search of PubMed, Dimensions, and the Cochrane Library was conducted through June 2025. Studies including children under 7 years undergoing intestinal SA or HA were eligible. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment using ROB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. Statistical analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (v3) with a random-effects model. RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 903 patients met inclusion criteria, including two randomized controlled trials. Of these, 333 patients underwent SA and 570 underwent HA. SA was associated with significantly shorter operative time (mean difference [MD] = -19.26 min; 95% CI: -24.24 to -14.28; p < 0.001) and earlier initiation of oral feeding (MD = -2.32 days; 95% CI: -3.78 to -0.86; p = 0.002). No significant differences were found in anastomotic leakage, stricture formation, reoperation rate, or length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Stapled anastomosis appears as safe as hand-sewn techniques in pediatric intestinal surgery while offering shorter operative duration and faster postoperative feeding recovery. Selective use of stapled techniques is supported when anatomically feasible, though further multicenter randomized trials are needed.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of long-term outcomes between liver transplantation and liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Liver resection (LR) has been the standard treatment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), but is associated with high recurrence rates and poor prognosis. Recently, outcomes for liver transplantation (LT) in highly selected ICC patients have significantly improved. This review compares the long-term prognosis of LT versus LR for ICC. METHODS: A systematic review of databases including Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL for comparative studies on the long-term outcomes of LT versus LR for ICC was completed. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models. RESULTS: A total of 7 retrospective comparative studies were included. A total of 5478 patients were analyzed (LT group: 346 patients; LR group: 5132 patients). Pooled analysis showed significantly improved long-term prognosis in the LT group compared to the LR group. Five-year OS was higher in the LT group (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37- 0.93, p = 0.02) and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) was also higher in the LT group (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22- 0.89, p = 0.02), although the comparison of 1-year OS (p = 0.52) and 3-year OS (p = 0.88) between the LT and LR groups showed no significant difference. However, sensitivity analysis revealed that excluding one study resulted in changes to the statistical significance of both 5-year OS and 5-year RFS. This suggests that individual studies have some influence. CONCLUSIONS: LT may be associated with improved long-term survival and recurrence outcomes compared with LR for ICC; however, the evidence is limited and should be interpreted with caution. These findings suggest a potential benefit of LT in carefully selected patients, but further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Intersphincteric resection versus abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical approach for lower rectal cancer (LRC) remains debated, particularly between intersphincteric resection (ISR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR). While ISR offers potential sphincter preservation, its oncological efficacy compared to APR is unclear. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to compare clinical and oncological outcomes of ISR versus APR in LRC patients. On December 8, 2024, a comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science identified 24 retrospective studies involving 4502 patients. Key outcomes analyzed included positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs), local recurrence (LR), length of hospital stay (LOS), early postoperative complications, and survival. RESULTS: Twenty-four retrospective studies involving 4502 patients (ISR: 2266 (50.3%) and APR: 1558 (34.6%)) met the eligibility criteria. ISR was associated with significantly lower rates of positive CRM (risk ratio (RR): 0.41, p < 0.001), decreased early postoperative complications (RR: 0.76, p < 0.001), lower LR (RR: 0.63, p = 0.0038), and improvement in five-year overall survival (5YOS) (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.42, p < 0.001) and five-year disease-free survival (5YDFS) (HR = 0.59, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ISR demonstrates several advantages over APR in selected LRC patients, including lower rates of positive CRM, fewer early postoperative complications, reduced LR, greater LN harvest, shorter LOS, and improved long-term survival outcomes (5YOS and 5YDFS). Therefore, ISR can be considered a safe and effective alternative to APR in appropriately chosen patients, with careful patient selection and surgical expertise remaining essential.

Humans↗

Compare source metadata on this page

Work	Published	Source identifier	Source
Efficacy and safety of thulium fiber laser versus conventional holmium:YAG laser in anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis.	2026-09-15	PMID 42742780	pubmed
Efficacy and safety of Vertebral Body Sliding Osteotomy (VBSO) versus Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF): A systematic review and meta-analysis.	2026-09-09	PMID 42711592	pubmed
Ibuprofen versus acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in pediatric populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of their efficacy.	2026-09-07	PMID 42704487	pubmed
Robot-assisted versus manual percutaneous vascular interventions across vascular territories: a systematic review and meta-analysis.	2026-09-07	PMID 42704529	pubmed
Sutureless versus renorrhaphy in robot-assisted off-clamp partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.	2026-09-07	PMID 42704544	pubmed
Robotic-assisted transbronchial biopsy versus computed tomography-guided transthoracic needle biopsy for peripheral pulmonary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct comparative studies.	2026-09-04	PMID 42696224	pubmed
Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacokinetically guided and body surface area-based 5-fluorouracil dosing in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.	2026-09-03	PMID 42687040	pubmed
Comparison of immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of EVA71 vaccine in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.	2026-08-25	PMID 42639682	pubmed
Virtual surgical planning-assisted versus free-hand head and neck reconstruction: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and a novel classification.	2026-08-05	PMID 42570605	pubmed
Gonadal function and fertility outcomes after orchiopexy versus orchiectomy for testicular torsion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.	2026-08-04	PMID 42546903	pubmed
Retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible and navigable suction access sheaths vs mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large upper urinary tract stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.	2026-07-29	PMID 42527043	pubmed
Minimally invasive versus open surgery for gallbladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.	2026-07-23	PMID 42520691	pubmed
Stapled versus hand-sewn intestinal anastomosis in pediatric surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.	2026-07-16	PMID 42462999	pubmed
Comparison of long-term outcomes between liver transplantation and liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.	2026-07-16	PMID 42468108	pubmed
Intersphincteric resection versus abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.	2026-07-08	PMID 42435723	pubmed

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.