SEARCH · Search PubMed

Search Search PubMed

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Esketamine vs. sufentanil for quality of recovery after outpatient gynecological surgery: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative administration of esketamine has been reported to improve early quality of recovery (QoR). However, data on its effects in outpatient surgery are limited. This study aimed to assess the impact of esketamine on QoR in patients undergoing outpatient gynecological procedures. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized clinical trial, patients aged 18-65 years scheduled for outpatient gynecological surgery under sedation were allocated to receive esketamine (0.2 mg/kg) or sufentanil (0.1 μg/kg) combined with propofol (1.5-3 mg/kg). The primary outcome was quality of recovery on postoperative day (POD) 1. Secondary outcomes included quality of recovery on POD2, sedation success rate, length of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, injection pain, postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, patient and clinician satisfaction, sleep quality, and anxiety and depression. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were randomized, with 63 assigned to the esketamine group and 63 to the sufentanil group. Of these, 125 patients were included in the final analysis (62 in the esketamine group and 63 in the sufentanil group), as one patient lacked follow-up data. The mean (SD) QoR-15 score on POD1 was 137.9 (14.5) in the esketamine group and 137.8 (10.7) in the sufentanil group, with no significant difference between groups (absolute difference, 0.2; 95% CI, -4.2 to 4.6; p = 0.93). For secondary outcomes, the esketamine group had a longer PACU stay (median, 28.0 vs. 23.0 min; p < 0.001), a lower incidence of severe injection pain (22.6% vs. 50.8%; p = 0.002), a higher proportion of patients with pain scores ≥ 4 at 30 min postoperatively (30.6% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.001), and higher fatigue scores (median, 3.0 vs. 2.0; p = 0.01). Other secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing sedation for outpatient gynecological procedures, esketamine did not significantly improve quality of recovery on POD1 compared to sufentanil. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2500098466.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Game changer? Cognitive-motor effects of VR exergaming compared to video-based training.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Virtual reality (VR) exergaming enhances several cognitive domains through multisensory engagement. Acute cognitive benefits of VR are established, but evidence for direct comparisons with non-immersive controls is limited. This study aimed to determine whether VR exercise provides additional cognitive and cognitive-motor benefits beyond a matched non-immersive active stick-fight video (SFV) intervention, and whether effects persist after training. METHODS: In this randomized quasi-experimental study, N = 55 healthy adults (VR: n = 30; SFV: n = 25; 25.5 ± 7.1 years; 41.8% female) completed an 8-week program (2 × 30 min/week), of VR or SFV matched in movement patterns, frequency, intensity and duration. Measurements included reaction time (RT), Stroop Test (versions 1-3), Letter Cancellation Test (LCT), Trail Making Test (TMT), Trail Walking Test (TWT) and Fitts task (difficulty level 1-4). Data were analyzed using mixed-design ANOVAs. RESULTS: Improvements were observed in Stroop reading (F(1,53) = 14.84, p < .001, η2 = 0.219), Stroop inhibition (F(1,53) = 10.99, p = .002, η2 = 0.172), and LCT (F(1,53) = 4.57, p = .037, η2 = 0.079). A time × group interaction was found for TMT (F(1,53) = 6.55, p = .031, η2 = 0.110), indicating greater changes following VR training. Both groups improved cognitive-motor performance (TWT: F(1,25) = 55.32, p < .001, η2 = 0.689; Fitts3: F(1,53) = 44.97, p < .001, η2 = 0.459), with greater gains for VR in Fitts3 (p = .006). CONCLUSION(S): Eight weeks of VR and SFV enhanced cognitive and cognitive-motor performance. VR provided domain-specific advantages in executive function, but these effects were not uniformly persistent. SFV sustained more improvements in real-world-relevant cognitive-motor tasks.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Liposomal bupivacaine versus ropivacaine for surgical site infiltration in lumbar fusion: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Effective postoperative pain control after lumbar spine surgery remains challenging, and excessive opioid use is associated with adverse outcomes. Evidence comparing liposomal bupivacaine (LB) with conventional long-acting local anesthetics in spine surgery is limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-center, prospective, randomized, patient- and outcome assessor-blinded trial, adult undergoing one- or two-level posterior lumbar decompression and fusion were assigned (1:1) to surgical site infiltration with either LB (266 mg) plus 25 mg plain bupivacaine (LB group) or ropivacaine (R group). The primary outcome was 72 h cumulative opioid consumption (morphine milligram equivalents, MME). Secondary outcomes included time-profile opioid consumption, pain scores, rescue analgesia, safety, and functional recovery. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Cumulative MME within 72 h was significantly lower in the LB group compared with the R group [43.0 (37.0, 58.0) mg vs. 58.0 (46.0, 73.0) mg], corresponding to a 22% relative reduction (GMR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71-0.85; p < 0.001). The reduction was most pronounced during 8-24 h and 24-48 h postoperatively. Overall pain scores at rest and with movement, as well as 72-h pain AUC, were lower in the LB group. No significant between-group differences were observed in rescue analgesia, adverse events and functional recovery. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing one- or two-level posterior lumbar decompression and fusion, surgical site infiltration with an LB-based combined regimen, compared with ropivacaine monotherapy, reduced 72-h opioid consumption and cumulative postoperative pain burden without an observed increase in adverse events or impairment of early functional recovery.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Impact of oliceridine versus sufentanil on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing thyroid surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication following thyroid surgery, often exacerbated by opioid use. Oliceridine, a novel G protein-biased μ-opioid receptor agonist, may reduce opioid-related adverse events. This study aimed to compare the impact of oliceridine versus sufentanil on the incidence and severity of PONV in patients undergoing thyroid surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial conducted between May 2025 and February 2026, 232 patients scheduled for thyroid surgery were randomly assigned to receive either oliceridine or sufentanil for intraoperative analgesia. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during the first 48 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included PONV severity, need for rescue anti-emetics, postoperative pain scores, recovery quality, and other adverse events. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV within 48 h postoperatively was significantly lower in the oliceridine group [13/107 (12%)] compared with the sufentanil group [31/110 (28%)] (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.72, p = 0.006). Postoperative pain scores, rescue analgesia requirements, and Quality of Recovery-15 scores were comparable between the two groups (p > 0.05). Besides, exploratory unadjusted analyses revealed fewer rescue anti-emetics: O group 8/107 (8%) vs S group 25/110 (23%) (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.64, p = 0.002); and less abdominal distension: O group 4/107 (4%) vs S group 19/110 (17%) (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.06-0.57, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: For young ASA I-II patients undergoing thyroid surgery, oliceridine yields adequate postoperative analgesia and lower PONV rates versus sufentanil. Additional trials involving high-intensity surgical procedures are needed to confirm consistent equivalence.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Thoracic paravertebral block with different doses of liposomal bupivacaine versus ropivacaine for postoperative analgesia in single-port thoracoscopic lung surgery: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) with different doses of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) or ropivacaine in patients undergoing single-port thoracoscopic lung surgery. METHODS: A total of 105 patients scheduled for video-assisted single-port thoracoscopic lung surgery were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio into three groups: low-dose LB group (group LL), high-dose LB group (group HL), or ropivacaine group (group R). All received ultrasound-guided TPVB at the T5/6 level preoperatively. The primary outcome was the area under the curve (AUC) of NRS of pain at activity (AUC-aNRS) from 1 to 72 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the AUC of NRS of pain at rest (AUC-rNRS) from 1 to 72 h postoperatively, NRS of pain at rest and at activity at 1, 6, 24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively, and the cumulative opioid consumption at 24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively. Additionally, postoperative recovery and adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: AUC-aNRS differed significantly among groups (p = 0.0092), with high-dose LB lower than low-dose LB (p = 0.0071), but not versus ropivacaine. No significant difference was found in AUC-rNRS (p > 0.05). The group-by-time interactions for NRS of pain at rest and at activity were not significant (p > 0.05). Cumulative opioid consumption at 24, 48, and 72 h was lower in group HL versus group LL (all p < 0.017), but not versus ropivacaine. Postoperative recovery and adverse events showed no differences (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: LB combined with TPVB is not superior to ropivacaine for postoperative analgesia in single-port thoracoscopic lung resection.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Impact on analgesia, diaphragmatic function, and recovery between erector spinae plane block versus superior trunk block in arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective analgesia and preservation of diaphragmatic function are key considerations in analgesia for shoulder surgery. The superior trunk block provides analgesia with reduced phrenic nerve involvement, while the erector spinae plane block offers minimal impact on diaphragm motion. This randomized controlled trial compared the analgesic efficacy, impact on diaphragmatic motion, and postoperative recovery between the two blocks. METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery were randomized to receive either erector spinae plane block or superior trunk block. Primary outcomes were postoperative VAS and changes in diaphragmatic excursion. Secondary outcomes included Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores, morphine-equivalent consumption, and the handgrip strength motor blockade. RESULTS: The superior trunk block resulted in significantly lower dynamic VAS at 1-h postoperatively (0.1 [0.0, 0.2] vs. 5.7 [4.0, 7.6]; p < 0.001) and reduced 24-h morphine consumption (7.8 [2.5, 15.0] mg vs. 12.7 [7.5, 17.3] mg; p = 0.038) compared to the erector spinae plane block. However, diaphragmatic excursion was better preserved in the erector spinae plane block group (8.37% ± 20.7% vs. -20.09% ± 22.2%; p < 0.001), with a lower incidence of partial hemidiaphragm paresis (3.3% vs. 46.7%; p < 0.001). At 24 h postoperatively, QoR-15 scores were higher in the superior trunk block group (p = 0.047), and no patient in either group developed handgrip motor blockade. CONCLUSIONS: Superior trunk block offers superior early postoperative analgesia and better overall recovery, while erector spinae plane block minimizes diaphragmatic impairment. However, the erector spinae plane block may represent an option only in carefully selected patients at high respiratory risk, acknowledging its significantly poorer early analgesic profile.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of VCV and PCV-VG modes on diaphragmatic function in diabetic patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic patients are prone to induce diaphragmatic weakness, which can lead to postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). The optimal mechanical ventilation mode may potentially improve postoperative diaphragmatic function. This study evaluates the effects of two ventilation modes under driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy on diaphragmatic function, as assessed by diaphragm thickening fraction (DTF) and diaphragm excursion (DE), in diabetic patients following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: Eighty patients diagnosed with Type II diabetes scheduled for elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery, were randomly allocated to either the pressure-controlled volume-guaranteed ventilation (PCV-VG) group (Group P) or the volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) group (Group V) during surgery. The primary outcome was diaphragmatic function assessed during both tidal breathing and maximal inspiratory effort after surgery. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative mechanical power, PPCs, and other complications. RESULTS: A total of eighty patients were included in the final analysis. The averaged area under the curve (AUC) for mechanical power during ventilation was significantly lower in Group P than in Group V (p = 0.002). PCV-VG significantly improved both DE and DTF within the first two days post-surgery (AUCDEtidal: p = 0.088, AUCDTFtidal: p = 0.004, AUCDEmax: p = 0.029, AUCDTFmax: p = 0.017). Postoperative diaphragmatic weakness was less frequent in Group P than in Group V (p = 0.019). However, there was no difference in the incidence of PPCs between the two groups (p = 0.155). CONCLUSION: PCV-VG mode can reduce intraoperative mechanical power, better preserve postoperative diaphragmatic function. However, these improvements did not translate into clinical benefits, as evidenced by the lack of reduction in the incidence of PPCs.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of opioid-free versus opioid-based total intravenous anaesthesia in elderly patients undergoing short-duration surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults who undergo short-duration surgery are vulnerable to opioid-related complications. It is uncertain whether an opioid-free total intravenous anaesthesia (OFA) can reduce these events. We aimed to determine whether OFA reduces the incidence of major postoperative adverse events compared with standard opioid-based total intravenous anaesthesia (OBA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center randomized clinical trial was conducted in China. From May to August 2025, 400 patients aged ≥60 years undergoing elective, short-duration surgery (anticipated duration of less than 90 min) were randomized 1:1 to receive either OFA (n = 200) or OBA (n = 200). The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative hypoxemia, delirium, or nausea and vomiting (PONV) within 48 h. RESULTS: A total of 400 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 69.5 [7.0] years; 125 [31.3%] women). The primary composite outcome occurred in 50 patients (25.0%) in the OFA group and 87 patients (43.5%) in the OBA group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.62; p < .001). Among the OFA group had a lower incidence of hypoxemia (15.0% vs 32.0%) and PONV (8.0% vs 16.0%). Intraoperative hemodynamic stability was greater in the OFA group. However, the OFA group had a higher incidence of intraoperative bradycardia (10.0% vs 3.0%; p = .005) and longer extubation times (mean, 9.5 vs 7.2 min; p < .001). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that OFA is a viable alternative to opioid-based anesthesia for improving postoperative outcomes by reducing the incidence of hypoxemia and PONV in this population, while warranting careful management of its associated side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2500102550.

Humans↗