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.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Bioabsorbable vs. titanium screws in first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis: a pilot randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the feasibility and preliminary clinical outcomes of bioabsorbable screw fixation in first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis compared to conventional titanium screw fixation. METHODS: In this prospective pilot randomized controlled trial, 30 patients were allocated 1:1 to bioabsorbable or titanium cannulated lag screw fixation. Arthrodesis was performed using a cup-and-cone technique at two Finnish hospitals. Full weight-bearing in an orthopaedic shoe was allowed after six weeks. Outcomes included AOFAS and VA-FAS FA-VAS scores, union rates, and complications assessed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS: Both groups showed significant functional improvement with no between-group differences. At 24 months, mean AOFAS scores were 89.1 (SD 2.7) in the titanium group and 90.0 (SD 0.0) in the bioabsorbable group (p = 0.23). Mean FA-VAS total scores (sum of pain, function, and complaints subscales) were 1948 (SE 59.4) in the titanium group and 1914 (SE 61.4) in the bioabsorbable group (p = 0.655). Union rate was 90% overall; nonunion occurred in one titanium and two bioabsorbable patients, all requiring revision. No implant-related complications or hardware removal surgeries were recorded. Degradation of bioabsorbable screws caused no adverse clinical or radiographic reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Bioabsorbable screws appear safe and feasible in first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis, with preliminary outcomes comparable to titanium fixation. These findings support the conduct of a larger confirmatory trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03133039, registered 28 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03133039.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Minimally invasive versus open abdominoperineal resection and the risk of postoperative perineal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of minimally invasive surgery on the risk of postoperative perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection (APR) or extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) remains uncertain. This study compares perineal hernia rates and perioperative outcomes between minimally invasive and open approaches. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched through June 2026. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. A Bayesian meta-analysis was additionally performed for the primary outcome. RESULTS: Four comparative observational studies involving 763 patients were included; 249 underwent minimally invasive APR/ELAPE, and 514 underwent open APR/ELAPE. Postoperative perineal hernia was significantly more frequent following minimally invasive surgery (OR 4.13; 95% CI 2.24-7.61; p < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the minimally invasive group (MD - 156.5 mL; 95% CI - 298.4 to - 14.5; p = 0.03), as was operative time (MD - 41.7 min; 95% CI - 60.8 to - 22.5; p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed in hospital stay (MD - 2.5 days; 95% CI - 5.4 to 0.4; p = 0.09) or 30-day readmission rates (OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.82-2.42; p = 0.209). Bayesian analysis yielded a posterior mean OR of 4.04 (95% CrI 1.96-8.36), corresponding to a 99.9% posterior probability that minimally invasive surgery increases the risk of postoperative perineal hernia. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive APR/ELAPE was associated with an increased risk of postoperative perineal hernia compared with the open approach. Strategies to reduce this complication while preserving the benefits of minimally invasive surgery warrant further investigation.

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

Comparative Efficacy of Different AI Systems for Polyp Detection by Size During Colonoscopy: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer remains a leading cause of death despite being largely preventable through polypectomy. AI systems designed to enhance polyp detection during colonoscopy have shown promise, but the extent to which they improve detection of different-sized polyps remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the size-stratified efficacy of AI-assisted colonoscopy vs standard colonoscopy using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) method, and generated exploratory rankings while acknowledging all cross-platform comparisons are indirect. METHODS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science from inception to July 25, 2026, supplemented by citation searching. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AI-assisted vs standard colonoscopy in adults (≥18 years of age), reporting mean polyp detection counts stratified by size (≤5 mm, 6-9 mm, and ≥10 mm). Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. We conducted frequentist NMA using the HKSJ method with restricted maximum likelihood estimation, calculated 95% prediction intervals (PIs), and assessed heterogeneity using I2 and τ2. Certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework. RESULTS: A total of 13 RCTs (4156 participants) compared 8 AI systems to standard colonoscopy, forming a network without direct AI comparisons. For diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI showed a modest advantage (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35, 95% PI -1.12 to 1.54), but substantial heterogeneity (I2=86.6%) and wide PI crossing the null indicated high uncertainty. EndoScreener showed the most consistent evidence (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.18-0.54). For small and large polyps, effects were minimal (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06, 95% PI -0.03 to 0.07; SMD 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.02, 95% PI -0.01 to 0.03). GRADE certainty was very low for diminutive polyps and low for small and large polyps. Sensitivity analysis excluding Tianjin YuJin did not materially change findings. CONCLUSIONS: AI may modestly enhance diminutive polyp detection, but effects on small and large polyps are minimal, with no platform superiority. Given very low to low certainty, findings are hypothesis-generating. This exploratory NMA provides size-stratified comparisons that can inform future head-to-head trial design. Unlike prior reviews aggregating all polyp sizes, we show the overall AI benefit is driven by diminutive polyp detection, providing a framework for targeted deployment-prioritizing AI for diminutive polyp screening, with limited value for larger lesions. Head-to-head trials are urgently needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD420251266932; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251266932.

Colonoscopy↗

PubMed2026

Osimertinib With or Without Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With EGFR and Concurrent TP53 Mutations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Combination therapy has emerged as a promising therapeutic approach for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, its clinical benefit-risk profile remains a focus of ongoing debate. Identifying patients most likely to derive benefit from such regimens remains an unmet clinical need. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the efficacy and safety of first-line osimertinib plus chemotherapy with osimertinib monotherapy for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC harboring concurrent TP53 mutations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study conducted at 17 sites in China. Between March 25, 2021, and July 11, 2024, a total of 294 eligible patients with treatment-naive, stage IV or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC harboring concurrent TP53 and EGFR-sensitizing mutations were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive osimertinib plus chemotherapy (pemetrexed and carboplatin every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by maintenance therapy of osimertinib plus pemetrexed; n = 146) or osimertinib monotherapy (n = 148). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, response, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Among 294 enrolled patients, the median age was 57 years (range, 26-79 years), and 159 (54.1%) were female. The data cutoff date was November 11, 2025. At a median follow-up of 25.1 months for the osimertinib-chemotherapy group and 26.1 months for the osimertinib monotherapy group, median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib plus chemotherapy than with osimertinib monotherapy (34.0 vs 15.6 months; difference, 18.4 months [95% CI, 9.9-22.3]; hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.32-0.60]; P < .001). This benefit was consistent across prespecified subgroups, including those with brain metastases and L858R mutations. The overall survival data remained immature (30.6% maturity); however, a trend toward overall survival benefit with combination therapy was observed. The incidence of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events was higher in the combination group, with no new safety signal identified. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, osimertinib plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC harboring concurrent TP53 mutations. These findings provided a clinical rationale for individualized combination strategies in the management of patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04695925.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Flexible ureteroscopy with a flexible and negative suction ureteral access sheath versus traditional sheath for treatment of infectious upper urinary tract stones: A prospective, randomized controlled study.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) with a flexible and negative suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) versus traditional sheath for patients with infectious upper urinary tract stones (IUUTS). A total of 185 patients were enrolled, with 93 assigned to the FANS group and 92 to the traditional UAS group. The primary outcome was the stone-free rate (SFR) at the first postoperative day. Secondary outcomes included the SFR at 30 days postoperatively, operative time, hemoglobin reduction, length of hospital stay, quality of life (QoL) improvement, incidence of ureteral stricture at 3 months, and surgery-related complications. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in baseline demographics or preoperative clinical characteristics (P > 0.05). The FANS group had significantly lower white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin levels at 6 and 24 h postoperatively (all P < 0.05). Mean operative time was significantly shorter (P < 0.001), QoL improvement was obviously greater (P < 0.001), and average hospital stay was shorter in the FANS group (P < 0.001). The SFRs on postoperative day 1 and at 30 days were both significantly higher in the FANS group (both P < 0.05). At 3 months, ureteral strictures occurred in three patients in the traditional UAS group and one in the FANS group, a difference that was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the FANS group (P < 0.05). For patients with IUUTS, fURS combined with FANS effectively improves stone clearance efficiency and reduces the risk of postoperative infection.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Fractional laser therapy versus microneedling for non-acne scars and scar-like dermal fibrotic lesions.

BACKGROUND: Scarring caused by trauma, burns, surgery, and other dermal fibrotic conditions can lead to functional limitation and cosmetic distress. The comparative effectiveness of fractional laser therapy and microneedling for non-acne scars remains uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing fractional laser therapy with microneedling for non-acne scars and scar-like dermal fibrotic lesions. Following a PROSPERO-registered protocol and PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CNKI from inception to May 2026 without language restrictions. Parallel-group and split-body randomized trials were eligible. Random-effects models were used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials were included. Fractional laser therapy showed a statistically significant advantage over microneedling in scar scores (SMD = -0.99, 95% CI [-1.83, -0.15], P = 0.02) and collagen fiber regeneration (SMD = -2.14, 95% CI [-3.57, -0.72], P = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were found between the two interventions for elastic fiber improvement, epidermal thickness, or adverse events. Subgroup analyses did not show clear or consistent significant differences according to laser type, including comparisons between traditional and non-traditional fractional lasers and between CO₂ and non-CO₂ fractional laser systems. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across several outcomes, indicating considerable between-study variability. CONCLUSION: Based on currently available randomized evidence, fractional laser therapy may provide superior improvement in overall scar severity and collagen fiber regeneration compared with microneedling for non-acne scars and scar-like dermal fibrotic lesions. However, no clear differences were observed for elastic fiber improvement, epidermal thickness, or adverse-event incidence. Given the substantial heterogeneity, limited sample sizes, and possible reporting bias, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Further large, standardized trials with longer follow-up are needed.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy of high-intensity laser therapy versus ultrasound therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and ultrasound (US) are widely used for knee osteoarthritis (KOA), but comparative efficacy data remain scarce. This study compared HILT and US as exercise adjuncts in patients with KOA. METHODS: In this single-center, assessor-blinded RCT, 66 adults with KOA were randomized 1:1 to HILT or US twice weekly for 6 weeks as exercise adjuncts. The primary outcome was WOMAC total score change from baseline to 12 weeks post-treatment (minimum important change [MIC] = 10 points, applied as an approximation). Secondary outcomes included VAS, OKS, KOOS, and EQ-5D-5L. RESULTS: In ITT analysis (N = 66), the HILT group achieved a mean WOMAC reduction of 40.0 vs 8.2 points (adjusted between-group difference: -27.7 points, 95% CI: - 39.0 to - 16.5; p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.277). At 12 weeks post-treatment, greater improvements across all secondary outcomes were observed in exploratory analyses (p ≤ 0.012). Furthermore, HILT maintained therapeutic effects up to 12 weeks post-treatment, whereas the US group experienced a gradual loss of post-treatment gains. CONCLUSION: HILT combined with exercise produced greater short-term improvements in WOMAC total score than US in patients with KOA, with exploratory findings suggesting consistent benefits in pain, function, and quality of life, and with benefits maintained up to 12 weeks after the last treatment session.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of a Modified Regimen of Prophylactic Phenylephrine Boluses Versus Variable Rate Infusion During Elective Cesarean Delivery Under Spinal Anesthesia: A Noninferiority Randomized Double-Blind Study.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic phenylephrine boluses have been found to be as effective as variable rate infusions during elective cesarean delivery but require a higher number of physician interventions to maintain blood pressure near baseline values. Therefore, there is a need to find a feasible regimen of bolus administration that is equally efficacious to the infusion regimen while at the same time requires a comparable number of physician interventions and is thus non-inferior to the infusion regimen. METHODS: Healthy pregnant women with term, uncomplicated, singleton pregnancies undergoing elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups. The Bolus group received a phenylephrine bolus 100 μg immediately after spinal anesthesia and then at every systolic blood pressure value <90% of the baseline. The infusion group received a prophylactic variable-rate infusion of phenylephrine beginning at 50 μg/min and titrated to maintain systolic blood pressure at 90-99% of baseline. The primary outcome was the number of physician interventions needed to maintain the target systolic blood pressure; the secondary outcomes included phenylephrine requirements, incidence of hypotension/hypertension/bradycardia, umbilical arterial and venous blood gas analysis, Apgar scores, and maternal complications. The primary outcome was analyzed in terms of non-inferiority using a non-inferiority margin of two interventions. RESULTS: Eighty patients were included in the study. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of physician interventions was 6 (5-8) in the infusion group and 3 (2-4) in the bolus group (P < .001). The difference of medians (95% confidence interval [CI]) between the two groups was -3 (-4 to -2). Phenylephrine requirements were higher in the infusion group (630 [426-765] μg) compared to the bolus group (300 [200-400] μg; P < .001). Blood pressure was higher at certain time points in the infusion group, but overall accuracy of blood pressure control was not different between the groups. Incidence of hypotension, hypertension, and bradycardia, neonatal outcomes, and maternal complications did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The modified regimen of prophylactic boluses is non-inferior to variable rate prophylactic phenylephrine infusion in terms of physician interventions needed to maintain systolic blood pressure within the target range and maternal and neonatal outcomes.

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

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

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

Autologous bone grafts versus alloplastic implants for orbital floor reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The choice of reconstructive material for orbital floor fractures remains a subject of debate. While autologous bone has historically been considered the "gold standard," alloplastic implants offer potential advantages in reducing surgical morbidity. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of autologous bone grafts versus alloplastic implants in orbital floor reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420251140583). Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to August 2025. Randomized controlled trials and comparative cohort studies evaluating functional outcomes (diplopia, enophthalmos) and complications (ectropion, infection, malposition) were included. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model, with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. RESULTS: Twenty studies comprising 2,119 patients were included. Alloplastic implants demonstrated statistically significant superiority in periocular safety, with a reduced risk of postoperative ectropion compared to autologous grafts (RR = 2.245; p = 0.020). In an exploratory sensitivity analysis excluding one outlier study, autologous grafts were associated with a significantly higher risk of implant malposition (RR = 2.074; p = 0.004). Autologous reconstruction was associated with a strong trend toward increased postoperative pain (p = 0.052) and inherent donor-site morbidity. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding infection (p = 0.402), enophthalmos (p = 0.201), or diplopia (p = 0.221). CONCLUSION: Alloplastic implants were associated with a lower risk of ectropion and implant malposition, with functional outcomes statistically comparable to autologous bone. Given the elimination of donor-site morbidity, alloplastic biomaterials represent a safe and effective alternative for orbital floor reconstruction; however, the predominance of retrospective, heterogeneous studies in the current evidence base means these findings should inform, rather than replace, individualized surgical decision-making pending further high-quality randomized trials.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Clinical performance of a giomer-based pit and fissure sealant with and without air-abrasion pretreatment: a 12-month randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Pit and fissure sealants are widely used for caries prevention; however, their long-term success depends largely on retention. Giomer-based sealants containing surface pre-reacted glass ionomer fillers offer bioactive properties, yet concerns remain regarding their bonding durability when applied with mild self-etch primers. This randomized clinical trial evaluated the effect of bioactive glass air-abrasion pretreatment on the retention and caries preventive efficacy of a giomer-based sealant in young adults over 12 months. METHODS: This parallel-arm randomized clinical trial included 96 participants, each contributing one eligible sound permanent molar (n = 48 per group). Participants were randomly allocated to either bioactive glass air-abrasion pretreatment followed by application of a giomer-based sealant (intervention group) or application of the same sealant without pretreatment (comparator group). Sealant retention and secondary caries incidence were evaluated at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using Simonsen's criteria, and modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria, respectively. The primary outcome was sealant retention at 12 months, whereas secondary caries incidence was assessed as a secondary outcome. Intergroup comparisons were analyzed using the Chi-square test. Intragroup comparisons were analyzed using Cochran's Q test followed by multiple comparisons. Relative risk with 95% confidence intervals was calculated. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: At 6 months, complete sealant retention was observed in 91.7% of teeth in the intervention group and 75.0% in the comparator group, with no statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.068). At 12 months, complete sealant retention was significantly higher in the intervention group (87.5%) than in the comparator group (33.3%) (p < 0.0001). Teeth in the intervention group exhibited an 81.25% lower risk of sealant retention failure compared with the comparator group (RR = 0.1875; 95% CI: 0.0864-0.4069; p < 0.0001). No differences in secondary caries incidence were detected between groups during the 12-month follow-up period (p = 1.0000). CONCLUSIONS: Bioactive glass air-abrasion pretreatment significantly improved the retention of a giomer-based fissure sealant compared with sealant application without pretreatment. No differences in secondary caries incidence were detected between groups during the 12-month follow-up period. Incorporating mechanical surface conditioning prior to sealant placement may enhance sealant retention without compromising preventive efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , (NCT06003452), 15-08-2023.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of a 755-nm picosecond laser and a 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser for the treatment of atrophic acne scars: a 20-week prospective, randomized, split-face clinical study.

To compare the efficacy and safety of a 755-nm picosecond laser with a diffractive lens array (P-DLA) and a 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser (NAFL) for the treatment of atrophic acne scars. Twenty-seven patients with atrophic acne scars underwent three sessions of randomized split-face treatment with P-DLA and NAFL at 4-week intervals. Patients were followed up at 1, 2, and 3 months after the final treatment. Efficacy was assessed using the Échelle d'Évaluation Clinique des Cicatrices d'Acné (ECCA) grading scale, the Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score, patients' self-rated improvement, and overall satisfaction. Treatment-related adverse reactions were recorded daily by patients until resolution. Both modalities demonstrated significant improvements in scar appearance based on ECCA score, IGA score, and patients' self-rated improvement (P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed between the two treatments. However, the P-DLA group showed higher patient satisfaction (P = 0.035) and a more favorable safety profile, including shorter durations of erythema and edema and the absence of crusting. Both P-DLA and NAFL were effective and safe for the treatment of atrophic acne scars, with similar efficacy. P-DLA offered better tolerability.

Humans↗