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.

3 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

King's Mill anterior-posterior and transverse versus paracervical block in operative outpatient hysteroscopy: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain control during operative outpatient hysteroscopy remains a clinical challenge, with the paracervical block (PCB) showing inconsistent efficacy. The King's Mill Anterior-Posterior and Transverse (KAPT) block targets the Lee-Frankenhauser plexus within the uterosacral ligament complex, where the highest density of uterine and cervical sensory fibres lies. We compared the KAPT block with the PCB in operative outpatient hysteroscopy. METHODS: Single-centre, participant- and outcome assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial in a UK district general hospital. Forty-eight women undergoing operative outpatient hysteroscopy were randomised 1:1 to the KAPT block or the PCB, each delivered with 10 ml of prilocaine. Pain was measured on a 10-point Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) during the procedure and 10 minutes post-procedure (co-primary endpoints), and during cervical dilatation (exploratory). Analyses used the Mann-Whitney U test on an intention-to-treat basis, with Hodges-Lehmann median differences, percentile bootstrap 95% confidence intervals, and a hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy. RESULTS: Median intra-procedural VAS was 1 (IQR 0 to 3) with the KAPT block versus 2 (IQR 1 to 6) with the PCB (Hodges-Lehmann median difference -1.00, 95% CI -3.00 to 0.00; p = 0.040). At 10 minutes post-procedure, median VAS was 0 (IQR 0 to 1.25) versus 2 (IQR 0 to 3.25) (median difference -1.00, 95% CI -2.00 to 0.00; p = 0.011). Both co-primary endpoints reached significance under hierarchical testing. Cervical dilatation pain did not differ significantly (p = 0.146). Satisfaction was 100% in both arms; willingness to recommend was 100% (KAPT) versus 95.8% (PCB). No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The KAPT block was associated with lower intra-procedural and post-procedural pain than the PCB, with effect sizes consistent with a clinically meaningful difference. These findings support the KAPT block as a superior, anatomically targeted alternative to the PCB and justify evaluation in a larger multicentre trial.Trial registration: ISRCTN15619382.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Feasibility and barriers to same-day physical therapy following lumbar fusion surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of same-day (postoperative day 0; POD0) physical therapy (PT) following lumbar fusion and to identify factors associated with failure to participate. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed prospectively collected data from patients undergoing single-level posterior spinal fusion (PSF), with or without anterior (ALIF) or lateral (LLIF) interbody fusion, between January and December 2024 at a single institution. A standardized POD0 PT protocol was implemented for eligible patients. Patients were categorized into two groups: successful POD0 PT (ambulatory on POD0) and unable to participate. Demographic and surgical variables were compared between groups. Reasons for inability to participate were recorded and categorized. RESULTS: Among 129 patients in whom POD0 PT was attempted, 84 (65%) successfully participated, while 45 (35%) were unable. There were no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, ASA class, operative time, estimated blood loss, or surgical approach between groups. Patients who successfully completed POD0 PT had a significantly shorter hospital length of stay compared to those who did not (3.4 ± 1.6 vs 5.8 ± 2.9 days, P < 0.001), with no differences in complication rates, discharge disposition, emergency department visits, or reoperation rates. The most common barriers to POD0 PT were postoperative pain, medical issues (e.g., orthostatic hypotension, nausea, dizziness), and anesthesia-related somnolence. Less common factors included postoperative restrictions and logistical issues such as brace availability. CONCLUSIONS: POD0 PT following lumbar fusion is feasible in the majority of patients and is associated with a shorter hospital stay without increased complications. Failure to participate was not associated with the baseline patient or surgical characteristics evaluated in this study. Instead, the most common barriers were postoperative pain, transient medical issues, and anesthesia-related somnolence, suggesting that optimization of modifiable perioperative factors may improve the implementation of POD0 PT.

Humans↗