SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Graft versus host disease”

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.

1,102 records · Page 13Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Vaginal Hysterectomy Versus Vaginal Assisted Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery Hysterectomy; Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare Vaginal Hysterectomy (VH) with Vaginal Assisted Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) hysterectomy (VANH) as a day-care procedure. DESIGN: Single-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two Dutch non-academic teaching hospitals. POPULATION: Women aged ≥ 18 years undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications. METHODS: Women were randomised 1:2 (VH or VANH). Primary outcome was SDD. Secondary outcomes included operative time, rate of elective salpingectomies, intraoperative blood loss, complications (Clavien-Dindo), pain scores (NRS) and analgesic use, post-operative recovery (RI-10), and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were included in the analyses (n = 42 VH, and n = 71 VANH). SDD occurred significantly more frequently in the VANH group (87.3%) than VH group (71.4%; OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.04-7.25; p = 0.04). VANH was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (median 55 min versus 65 min; p = 0.005), less blood loss (median 50 mL vs. 150 mL; p < 0.001) and more often elective opportunistic salpingectomy compared to VH (100% vs. 77.4%; p = 0.008). NRS were significantly lower in the VANH group the first hour post-operative (3 vs. 1, p < 0.001). Post-operative complications (VH 9.5% vs. VANH 15.5%; p = 0.34), readmission (VH 4.8% vs. VANH 8.5%; p = 0.47), analgesic use, recovery, and quality of life were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: VANH is a safe and effective alternative to VH, offering a higher likelihood of SDD, shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, and more often an elective salpingectomy, without increased complications or differences in pain, recovery, or quality of life.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Once-weekly IcoSema versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in type 2 diabetes management (COMBINE 4): an open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, randomised, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Stepwise treatment intensification is recommended for managing type 2 diabetes, including insulin initiation when non-insulin glucose-lowering medications are insufficient. Guidelines recommend combining a GLP-1 receptor agonist with basal insulin to improve glycaemic efficacy while reducing weight gain and hypoglycaemia risk. COMBINE 4 evaluated the efficacy and safety of IcoSema, a once-weekly combination therapy of basal insulin icodec and semaglutide (a GLP-1-receptor agonist) versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes on oral glucose-lowering medications. METHODS: COMBINE 4 was a 40-week, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, phase 3b trial conducted across 97 sites in nine countries. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥8·0%) receiving oral glucose-lowering medications were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio without stratification to IcoSema or once-daily glargine U100. The titration target was 3·9-5·0 mmol/L (70-90 mg/dL). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c and the secondary confirmatory endpoint was change in bodyweight, both from baseline to week 40, evaluated in all randomly allocated participants. Adverse events were recorded during weeks 0-45. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06269107) and is complete. FINDINGS: Of 653 individuals screened between Feb 15 and Aug 6, 2024, 151 did not meet screening criteria and 17 withdrew before initiating treatment; 243 were randomised to IcoSema and 242 to glargine U100. Of the 485 randomly allocated participants, 286 (59%) were male and 199 (41%) were female, and median age was 58 years (range 26-82). For HbA1c, from baseline (9·57% for IcoSema and 9·50% for glargine U100), mean change to week 40 was greater with IcoSema versus glargine U100 (-3·32 vs -2·44 percentage points; estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0·88 percentage points [95% CI -1·12 to -0·63]), confirming superiority of IcoSema (p<0·001). From baseline to week 40, mean bodyweight decreased with IcoSema and increased with glargine U100 (-0·79 vs 3·81 kg; ETD -4·61 kg [95% CI -5·46 to -3·75]), confirming superiority of IcoSema (p<0·001). Rate of combined clinically significant (blood glucose <3·0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL], confirmed with a blood glucose meter) or severe hypoglycaemia (severe cognitive impairment requiring external assistance for recovery) was statistically significantly lower with IcoSema versus glargine U100 (0·29 vs 0·59 episodes per person-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 0·56 [95% CI 0·32 to 0·97]; p=0·04). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported adverse events with IcoSema. INTERPRETATION: Once-weekly IcoSema demonstrated superior HbA1c reduction and bodyweight change, with lower rates of clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia, versus glargine U100, suggesting that IcoSema might be an effective once-weekly treatment option for insulin-naive individuals with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering medications. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Short-term safety of dual versus single antiplatelet therapy in flow diversion for distal intracranial aneurysms: results from the DART trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Flow diverters (FDs) have become one of the primary treatments for intracranial aneurysms (IAs). However, their use in distal IA has been associated with higher complication rates compared with other techniques. The development of coated FDs, in combination with novel antiplatelet regimens, offers promising strategies to improve the safety profile of FDs in this context. This trial aimed to compare mono antiplatelet therapy (MAPT) using prasugrel versus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and prasugrel for the treatment of distal IA using the p48 MW HPC FD (WallabyPhenox). METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, parallel-group, single-blind, non-inferiority randomized trial. Between February 2021 and February 2025, 140 patients were enrolled. After excluding 11 patients, 129 were included in the final analysis. The primary endpoint was the absence of new neurological deficits, defined as no shift in the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of any stroke. RESULTS: At the 30-day follow-up, 66 patients (98.5%) in the MAPT group and 59 patients (95.2%) in the DAPT group showed no new neurological deficits. With a predefined non-inferiority margin of 5%, the difference of 3.35% confirmed the non-inferiority of MAPT compared with DAPT (p=0.002). The incidence of any stroke was 4/67 (5.9%) in the MAPT group and 6/62 (9.6%) in the DAPT group (p=0.431). CONCLUSION: Prasugrel monotherapy for the treatment of distal IAs using the p48 MW HPC was non-inferior to DAPT within the first 30 days following treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-3q9zb73. UTN code: U1111-1290-2489. Research Ethics Committee of the Hospital das Clínicas de Ribeirão Preto - Universidade de São Paulo. CAAE number: 29848720.0.1001.5440.

Humans↗

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

Safety and Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-associated thrombosis is a condition associated with high mortality rates, yet limited evidence exists regarding the safety and effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), focusing on a fixed follow-up period based on clinical practice guideline recommendations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of DOACs versus LMWH in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis over a 6-month follow-up period. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to 30 June, 2025. Recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials and 28 cohort studies were included in our systematic review. After applying the criteria for a 6-month follow-up period, five randomized controlled trials and 16 cohort studies with 49,824 patients were analyzed in the meta-analysis. In randomized controlled trials, DOACs showed a lower incidence of venous thromboembolism recurrence (relative risk [RR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.87) compared with LMWH, with a non-significant increase in major bleeding (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.87-1.88) and no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86-1.18). Cohort studies demonstrated a lower incidence of venous thromboembolism recurrence (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62-0.76) with DOACs, a non-significant reduction in major bleeding (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.07), and a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cancer-associated thrombosis, DOACs demonstrated a decrease in recurrent venous thromboembolism without increasing the risk of all-cause mortality. A non-significant increase in the risk of major bleeding was recorded in randomized controlled trials, but not in cohort studies. DOACs may provide greater effectiveness for cancer-associated thrombosis compared with LMWH.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Influence of Concave Versus Convex Emergence Profiles on Midfacial Mucosal Stability-A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the influence of concave versus convex emergence profiles on midfacial mucosal stability in partially edentulous patients restored with implant-supported single restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251139042). An electronic search in MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase was performed up to May 7, 2026. Eligible studies included RCTs comparing concave (test group) and convex (control group) transmucosal prosthetic designs and reporting midfacial mucosal level changes (mm). Data extraction and risk of bias assessment (RoB 2) were performed independently. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using weighted mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: Four RCTs including 144 implants with a 12-month follow-up were included. Of these, 128 implants contributed to the quantitative synthesis, with 66 implants allocated to the concave/modified emergence profile group and 62 implants allocated to the convex/non-concave emergence profile group. The pooled analysis demonstrated a mean difference of -0.31 mm (95% CI -0.63 to 0.02; p = 0.064), indicating a trend toward greater midfacial mucosal recession with convex emergence profiles compared with concave designs. Between-study heterogeneity was low to moderate (I2 = 28%), suggesting consistent findings across studies. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the direction of the effect, with pooled estimates ranging from -0.12 to -0.43 mm. Exclusion of one study resulted in a statistically significant difference favoring concave emergence profiles (-0.43 mm; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.16; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Convex emergence profiles are associated with a tendency toward increased midfacial mucosal recession. Concave profiles are preferable to support peri-implant soft-tissue stability. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Emergence profile design should be considered an integral component of prosthetic and surgical planning. The use of concave transmucosal contours during provisionalization and definitive restoration may contribute to improved peri-implant soft tissue stability and enhanced esthetic outcomes.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effect of ketofol versus Fentanyl-Midazolam sedation on neurological recovery in traumatic brain Injury: A randomised study.

Neurological recovery after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is multifactorial, and sedation is a cornerstone of neurocritical care because of its neuroprotective role. Although ketofol is widely used for anaesthesia, its effectiveness as a sedative regimen in the intensive care unit (ICU) has not been well studied. This preliminary exploratory double-blind, randomised study compared ketofol (KP) with fentanyl-midazolam (FM) sedation in adults with moderate-to-severe TBI. Sedation was administered for 72 h and titrated to a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score ≤  - 3. The primary outcome was the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included GOSE at 90 days, incidence of propofol infusion syndrome (PRIS), duration of mechanical ventilation, haemodynamic stability, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Of 120 enrolled patients, 111 were included in the final analysis (57 FM, 54 KP). Baseline characteristics, including injury severity and Marshall CT scores, were comparable. At 30 days, good neurological recovery (GOSE 7-8) was more frequent in the KP group than the FM group (26% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.03). At 90 days, recovery remained higher with KP (44.4% vs. 33.3%), though the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.16). Multivariate analysis confirmed ketofol as an independent predictor of good recovery at 30 days (adjusted OR 3.63, 95% CI 1.11-11.85, p = 0.033). No PRIS occurred, and secondary outcomes were similar. Ketofol-based sedation was safe and may be associated with improved early neurological recovery compared with fentanyl-midazolam, with a favourable trend toward improved long-term neurological recovery.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Treatment of OSA using mandibular advancement versus CPAP in improving cardiovascular health.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea is a significant risk factor for hypertension. We assessed the relative effectiveness of mandibular advancement device (MAD) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in reducing 24 h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and other health-related outcomes over 12 months. METHODS: In a randomized, non-inferiority trial, 321 participants with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk were recruited for polysomnography. Of these, 220 with moderate-to-severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ≥15 events/hour) were randomized to MAD or CPAP (1:1). We report the final outcomes at the 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 180 participants (MAD: 89; CPAP: 91) completed the 12-month follow-up. Median usage for MAD and CPAP was 5.5 and 4.9 h per night, respectively. Compared to baseline, the 24 h mean arterial BP at 12 months decreased by 2.3 mmHg (P = 0.200) in the MAD group and by 1.0 mmHg (P = 0.999) in the CPAP group. The difference between-groups was -0.6 mmHg (95% confidence interval: -2.53 to 1.39, non-inferiority P < 0.019). The MAD group demonstrated a larger reduction in asleep BP compared to the CPAP group. The prevalence of excessive daytime sleepiness in the MAD group decreased from 30.3% at baseline to 10.1% at 12-month follow-up (P = 0.001), and from 38.5% to 7.7% in the CPAP group (P < 0.001). The between-group difference was 10.6% (P = 0.097). No significant within-group or between-group differences were observed in the prevalence of arrhythmias and plasma levels of cardiac biomarkers. CONCLUSION: At 12-month, MAD is non-inferior to CPAP for reducing 24 h mean arterial BP in participants with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04119999.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Transcranial Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring Using Propofol-Fentanyl Versus Desflurane-Dexmedetomidine Anesthesia During Spinal Cord Tumor Resection: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing resection of spinal cord tumours require intraoperative neuromonitoring. Transcranial electrical stimulation is used to record myogenic responses during surgery. This study aimed to compare the effect of 2 anaesthetic regimens, propofol/fentanyl versus desflurane/dexmedetomidine, on the ability to record MEPs with an amplitude of 50 µV or greater. Our secondary outcome compared intraoperative haemodynamics, recovery profile, and postoperative analgesia between the groups. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blinded, open-label, single-centre, randomized controlled trial of 50 adult patients undergoing spinal cord tumour resection with TcmMEP monitoring. Patients were randomized to 2 groups: Group P (n=25) received intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and fentanyl; group D (n=25) received desflurane and dexmedetomidine. RESULTS: We recorded TcmMEP's in 80% of group P and 76% group D (95% CI: -23% to 31%, P =1.00). The time in minutes for spontaneous breathing (21.04±11.31 vs. 8.00±3.42 [8.29-,17.79, P =0.01]), extubation (31.56±17.56 vs. 10.84±3.99 [13.48-27.96; P =0.01]), emergence (33.68±18.11 vs. 10.92±4.01 [15.30-30.22, P =0.001]), discharge readiness (45.00±25.24 vs. 15.56±6.08 [19.00-39.88; P =0.001]) and requirement of first analgesia (136.6±108.04 vs. 230.8±81.33) (-148.58 to -39.82; P =0.01) was lower in group D compared with group P. Postoperative analgesia assessed using the Visual Analogue Score was lower in group D compared with group P at 12 and 24 hours. (1.68±1.18 vs. 0.64±1.31 [0.33-1.74 P =0.001]) :1.4±0.95 vs. 0.36± 0.70 (0.56-1.51; P =0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found similar rates of successful TcMEP monitoring using desflurane-dexmedetomidine and propofol-fentanyl. Patients who received desflurane-dexmedetomidine had reduced emergence time, discharge readiness, and lower pain scores in the postoperative period.

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

Flap Versus Tunneling for Horizontal Ridge Augmentation With FDBA and i-PRF: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

AIM: This study evaluated the efficacy of conventional flap and tunneling techniques for horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation using freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) particles combined with injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups (n = 15 each): conventional flap (CF), tunneling with membrane (TM), or tunneling without membrane (TnM). Preoperative ridge width was measured via cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). All augmentation procedures incorporated FDBA and i-PRF; an absorbable collagen membrane was applied in the CF and TM groups. Follow-up assessments, including CBCT imaging and histomorphometric analysis, were conducted 6 months postoperatively. For normally distributed data, ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test and paired samples t-test were applied. Non-normally distributed data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: Statistical analysis was performed on 43 patients. All groups demonstrated an increase in ridge width after 6 months. At the 2 mm level, the mean width gain was 1.28 mm (95% CI: 0.17 to 2.40) in the TM group, 2.85 mm (95% CI: 1.80 to 3.89) in the TnM group, and 1.95 mm (95% CI: 1.07 to 2.83) in the CF group. However, statistical analysis revealed no significant intergroup variation (p > 0.05). Histomorphometric assessments similarly demonstrated comparable outcomes across all groups, with no statistically significant differences observed (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the tunneling technique, regardless of membrane use, appears to be a clinically viable alternative to the conventional flap method for horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation. However, further studies with longer follow-up periods are required to substantiate these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: irct.behdasht.gov.ir identifier: IRCT 20101204005305N21.

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

Comparison of Keverprazan-based versus esomeprazole-based dual therapy for initial treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection: a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Keverprazan offers a new perspective for Helicobacter pylori eradication. This study compared 14-day keverprazan-amoxicillin therapy with esomeprazole-amoxicillin therapy to explore a superior treatment strategy. METHODS: This was a prospective, open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in adult patients with treatment-naive H. pylori infection. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 14-day of KA therapy (Keverprazan 20 mg b.i.d plus amoxicillin 1 g t.i.d) or 14-day of EA therapy (Esomeprazole 40 mg b.i.d plus amoxicillin 1 g t.i.d). The primary outcome was the H. pylori eradication rate. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of adverse events and patient adherence. RESULTS: A total of 264 patients were enrolled in the study. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, the eradication rates for the 14-day KA group and the 14-day EA group were 87.9% and 80.3%, respectively (p = 0.092); in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis, the eradication rates were 92.1% and 86.2%, respectively (p = 0.135); and in the per-protocol (PP) analysis, the eradication rates were 93.5% and 88.3%, respectively (p = 0.155). Non-inferiority was confirmed between the two groups (all p < 0.001). Adverse events and patient adherence were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: For treatment-naive H. pylori infection, the 14-day KA therapy is non-inferior to EA therapy. Given its good tolerability, pharmacogenomic independence, and potent acid suppression, KA is a rational first-line alternative to EA in the Chinese population.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of the Effects of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia on the Perioperative Intraocular Pressure: A prospective, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of spinal and general anesthesia on the intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients, who had lumbar spine and lower extremity orthopedic surgeries. METHODS: Sixty adult were randomly classified into Group spinal anesthesia (SA) and Group general anesthesia (GA). The IOP, mean systemic arterial pressure, and heart rhythm were measured at 6 pre-determined timepoints (T0: Baseline, T1: Before spinal procedure or anesthesia induction, T2: After injection with intrathecal or anesthesia induction, T3: 5th minutes (min) after spinal procedure or tracheal intubation, T4: 30th min intraoperative, T5: At the end of surgery, T6: 5th min after surgery or tracheal extubation in the operation room. RESULTS: The baseline IOP and IOP1 measurements during were not significantly different between the groups (SA = 14.28 ± 0.8 mmHg; GA = 14.62 ± 0.9 mmHg, p = 0.923; and IOP1: SA = 15.83 ± 0.9 mmHg; GA = 15.88 ± 0.9 mmHg, p = 0.929). The most significant decrease in IOP in both groups was recorded at T2 (SA: 12.37 ± 0.6. GA: 12.24 ± 0.4, p < 0.001). The decrease in IOP2 was more significant in the GA group. The IOP3 was significantly higher in GA group after intubation (GA: 19.82 ± 1.2, SA: 12.86 ± 1.0)(p < 0.05). The IOP4 and IOP5 in the SA group were lower than those in the GA group. The IOP6 in both groups was higher (SA: 15.20 ± 0.8, GA: 16.50 ± 1.0) than the baseline IOP values, albeit not significant (p > 0.05). In prone position, IOP at the T4 and T5 timepoints were significantly higher than the initial values in both the SA and the GA groups; however, the increase in the GA group was more higher than that of the SA group. CONCLUSION: In intraoperative period, intraocular pressure may increase in both management of anesthesia, but this increase is higher in the general anesthesia group.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Physicochemical effects of bicarbonate-buffered solution versus compound sodium lactate during major abdominal surgery: A randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

INTRODUCTION: Bicarbonate-buffered crystalloids avoid exogenous lactate and have physicochemical properties distinct from compound sodium lactate (CSL), but direct comparative evidence during major abdominal surgery remains limited. METHODS: This single-center, open-label, randomized non-inferiority trial enrolled high-risk adults undergoing elective major abdominal surgery. Participants received bicarbonate-buffered solution or CSL as the allocated intraoperative crystalloid. The primary estimand was the arithmetic mean difference in standard base excess (SBE) at skin closure (bicarbonate-buffered solution minus CSL). The non-inferiority margin was -1.5 mEq/L. The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619001228178). RESULTS: Fifty participants were randomized (25 per group) and received their allocated intervention. End-of-surgery arterial blood gas data were missing for two CSL participants. In the intention-to-treat analysis using multiple imputation, the estimated mean difference in end-of-surgery SBE was -0.42 mEq/L (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.92 to 1.09 mEq/L). The complete-case per-protocol estimate was -0.48 mEq/L (95% CI, -2.02 to 1.06 mEq/L). In both analyses, the lower CI bound was below the prespecified non-inferiority margin; non-inferiority was not established. Secondary outcomes were exploratory; observed end-of-surgery lactate was lower with bicarbonate-buffered solution (median 0.9 vs 1.2 mmol/L; unadjusted P = 0.031), without a corresponding difference in SBE or pH. CONCLUSIONS: In this small trial of hemodynamically stable adults undergoing elective major abdominal surgery, the primary non-inferiority result was inconclusive. The data did not establish interchangeability, equivalence, superiority, or inferiority of the two fluids. As the trial was powered for a physiologic endpoint, no comparative inference can be made about organ dysfunction, postoperative complications, recovery, or mortality. Larger trials with standardized co-interventions and patient-important outcomes are required before routine substitution for CSL can be recommended.

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↗

PubMed2026

Effectiveness of the DASH diet versus alternative dietary interventions for hypertension management: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet is widely recommended for blood pressure control; however, its comparative effectiveness relative to other structured dietary interventions remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the DASH diet versus alternative dietary interventions on blood pressure and cardiometabolic outcomes in adults. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Multiple databases were searched from inception to February 2026. Eligible studies included adults with elevated blood pressure or hypertension comparing the DASH diet with other dietary interventions or usual care. Continuous outcomes were pooled using random-effects models and expressed as mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 22 randomized controlled trials were included in the qualitative synthesis, of which 10 were included in the meta-analysis. The DASH diet did not demonstrate a statistically significant advantage over comparator diets in reducing systolic blood pressure (MD = 1.30; 95% CI: -1.54 to 4.14) or diastolic blood pressure (MD = 0.21; 95% CI: -3.72 to 4.14), with substantial heterogeneity observed across studies. Significant effects were identified for selected cardiometabolic outcomes, including reductions in urinary sodium excretion (MD = -32.89; 95% CI: -62.76 to -3.01), LDL cholesterol (MD = -8.59; 95% CI: -14.64 to -2.54), and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (MD = -0.49; 95% CI: -0.52 to -0.46), as well as an increase in urinary potassium excretion (MD = 11.76; 95% CI: 4.08 to 19.44). The certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low across outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The DASH diet was not superior to other dietary interventions in reducing blood pressure; however, it demonstrated consistent benefits in selected cardiometabolic parameters. Given the overall low certainty of evidence and substantial heterogeneity, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Future research should focus on well-designed trials with standardized outcomes and longer follow-up to clarify comparative effectiveness.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

MIS-TLIF Versus Open TLIF in Combined Lumbar Stenosis and Low-Grade Spondylolisthesis : Of Discharge Timing and Treatment Pricing.

STUDY DESIGN: An open-label, randomized, noninferiority clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of the MIS-TLIF over the O-TLIF in patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis combined with low-grade spondylolisthesis by comparing the clinical efficacy and safety. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In patients with combined lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis, it remains uncertain whether minimally invasive fusion surgery is noninferior to the open approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an open-label, noninferiority trial involving patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis combined with low-grade spondylolisthesis. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either MIS-TLIF or open TLIF surgery. The primary endpoint was the reduction in the Oswestry disability index (ODI) score from baseline to three months postsurgery, with a noninferiority margin of 12 points. Secondary outcomes included three-month changes from baseline in back and leg pain, neuropathic pain, satisfaction with treatment, intraoperative data, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In the modified intention-to-treat population, the mean difference was 0.4, with the corresponding 90% CI of -5.7 to 6.5, having a lower bound below the noninferiority margin of 12. Similar results were obtained by analysis of the per-protocol population. 82.8% of patients achieved the MCID for the ODI. Results for secondary outcomes (clinical scales, complications) showed no significant differences between the treatment groups (all P >0.05). Although the open TLIF group had a hospital stay that was 1.5 days longer ( P =0.005) and required additional analgesia more frequently ( P =0.026), direct costs were 10.5% higher in the MIS-TLIF group ( P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first high-quality study comparing open TLIF and MIS-TLIF with a validated primary endpoint. Among patients with combined lumbar degenerative stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis, MIS-TLIF resulted in clinical outcomes at three months that were noninferior to those with open TLIF.

Humans↗