SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “ultrasound-guided”

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.

239 records · Page 14Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Longitudinal functional trajectory and surgical outcomes after intracranial meningioma resection: implications for surgical decision-making in older patients.

OBJECTIVE: As the population ages, meningiomas are increasingly encountered in older patients, yet longitudinal functional outcomes following surgery across age groups remain incompletely characterized. This study evaluated age-related differences in clinical and tumor characteristics, functional trajectory, and surgical outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 396 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for intracranial meningiomas at a single academic center between January 2023 and September 2025. Patients were stratified into 5 age groups (< 65, 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, and ≥ 80 years). Neurological deficits and Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) were assessed preoperatively, at discharge, and at last follow-up. Logistic regression analyses identified predictors of prolonged length of stay (LOS) (> 5 days) and poor functional outcome at discharge (KPS < 80). RESULTS: Older patients presented with greater comorbidity burden, larger tumors, and lower preoperative KPS (all p < 0.05), while gross-total resection was achieved at comparable rates across all age groups (p = 0.504). A clinically meaningful inflection point was observed around age 75 years, with KPS < 80 at discharge rising from 7.4% and 9.7% in the < 65-year and 70- to 74-year subgroups and to 36.2% and 57.1% in the 75- to 79-year and ≥ 80-year subgroups (p < 0.001), and median LOS increased from 4 days in the younger groups to 9 and 7 days in the 75- to 79-year and ≥ 80-year groups (p < 0.001). However, recovery rates among patients who experienced functional decline at discharge were comparable across age strata. On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of prolonged LOS were age ≥ 75 years (OR 2.31, p = 0.019), diabetes mellitus (OR 2.85, p = 0.004), posterior fossa location (OR 2.1, p = 0.008), tumor diameter (OR 1.33, p < 0.001), postoperative edema (OR 2.58, p = 0.015), and neurosurgical complications (OR 3.18, p = 0.002). Independent predictors of poor functional outcome at discharge were age ≥ 75 years (OR 5.84, p < 0.001), lower preoperative KPS (OR 2.8, p < 0.001), posterior fossa location (OR 3.72, p = 0.003), neurosurgical complications (OR 3.56, p = 0.008), and recurrent meningioma (OR 2.89, p = 0.025). Among 70 endoscopic endonasal approach patients, higher preoperative deficit burden and subtotal resection rates were observed compared to open craniotomy, though overall functional outcomes were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical risk in meningioma resection increases from age 75 years onwards, yet recovery capacity following initial functional decline remains similar across all age groups. Preoperative functional status, tumor location, comorbidity burden, and recurrence history should guide surgical decision-making rather than age alone.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

High-frequency contralesional dorsal premotor cortex and low-frequency contralesional primary motor cortex rTMS in subacute stroke with severe upper limb impairment: comparable motor outcomes and differential regional degree centrality changes.

BACKGROUND: The contralesional dorsal premotor cortex has been proposed as a potential neuromodulatory target for patients with severe upper limb impairment due to subacute ischemic stroke. This proof-of-concept study aimed to compare behavioral outcomes and resting-state neuroimaging findings between high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the contralesional dorsal premotor cortex and guideline-supported low-frequency stimulation over the contralesional primary motor cortex. METHODS: In this randomized trial, 46 patients with severe upper limb impairment in the subacute stage after ischemic stroke were randomly assigned to receive either high-frequency rTMS over the contralesional dorsal premotor cortex or low-frequency rTMS over the contralesional primary motor cortex. Low-frequency stimulation over the contralesional primary motor cortex served as an evidence-supported active comparator for poststroke upper limb motor recovery. Stimulation was administered five times per week for two weeks using magnetic resonance imaging-guided neuronavigation. All participants received concurrent standard rehabilitation therapy. The primary outcome was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity. Secondary outcomes included the Arm Subscore of the Motricity Index, the Hong Kong version of the Functional Test for the Hemiplegic Upper Extremity, the Modified Barthel Index, and resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging-derived degree centrality. RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvements in the primary and secondary behavioral measures (p < 0.01), with no significant between-group differences in the magnitude of change (p > 0.05). In neuroimaging analyses, patients receiving high-frequency rTMS over the contralesional dorsal premotor cortex showed significantly greater degree centrality changes in the ipsilesional middle occipital gyrus, contralesional medial superior frontal gyrus, and contralesional middle frontal gyrus than those receiving low-frequency rTMS over the contralesional primary motor cortex (p < 0.05). Within the high-frequency stimulation group, degree centrality changes in the ipsilesional middle occipital gyrus were positively correlated with improvements in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (r = 0.619, false discovery rate-corrected p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: High-frequency rTMS over the contralesional dorsal premotor cortex produced behavioral improvements comparable to guideline-supported low-frequency rTMS over the contralesional primary motor cortex, without establishing superiority or formal non-inferiority. Exploratory neuroimaging analyses showed greater degree centrality changes in the ipsilesional middle occipital gyrus after high-frequency premotor stimulation, and these changes correlated with upper-limb motor improvement. These findings support further investigation of contralesional dorsal premotor cortex-targeted high-frequency rTMS for severe subacute post-stroke upper limb impairment. REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn; Unique identifier: ChiCTR2000038049.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Contact tracing for hepatitis C: perspectives of people with experience of substance use and hepatitis C on intervention acceptability.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic hepatitis C (HCV) is a major cause of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. In the UK, the principal risk factor for HCV is injecting drug use. The introduction of direct acting anti-virals (DAA's) have transformed HCV care, with cure rates of over 95%. However, HCV is often asymptomatic, and reinfection is a concern. Modelling and real-life studies demonstrate the potential effectiveness of a contact tracing approach for finding people who have acquired HCV through injecting drug use. However, it is not used routinely in the UK. This qualitative study was undertaken to assess the acceptability of a contact tracing approach to identify people who have injected drugs with an index patient recently diagnosed with HCV. METHODS: Twelve people with lived or living experience of injecting drug use and an HCV diagnosis were interviewed using semi-structured interview topic guides. Participants were purposefully selected according to the inclusion criteria and to ensure there was an even spread of male and female participants. Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, incorporating seven components (affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity cost, perceived effectiveness, and self-efficacy) was used to analyse data from interview transcripts. RESULTS: A sample of 12 people who inject drugs in the UK indicated that a contact tracing approach was acceptable across two components of Sekhon's acceptability framework: affective attitude and ethicality. Participants broadly found the idea of tracing people who may be at risk of contracting HCV acceptable, and the approach aligned with their value systems. A contact tracing approach would help alleviate concerns about putting other people's lives at risk through HCV transmission and was seen as a 'sensible' way of finding people at risk. However, there were caveats to this acceptability. Contact tracing approaches delivered by mainstream health, or governmental organisations increased burden, opportunity costs and perceived effectiveness of a contact tracing approach for HCV, particularly within contexts of exclusion and criminalisation of people who inject drugs. Burden and opportunity costs were also affected by individual experiences and risks of violence, sexual violence and abuse. There was a lack of knowledge of contact tracing approaches amongst respondents, leading to a lack of intervention coherence and misunderstandings of what contact tracing was and how it would work. Trusted relationships with NGOs and HCV specialist nurses reduced burden and increased confidence and ability (self-efficacy) to engage with a contact tracing approach. CONCLUSION: People who inject drugs broadly perceive contact tracing as an acceptable method of finding people who are at risk of HCV. However, this acceptability is based on specific modes of delivery through trusted organisations. Findings further highlight the importance of naming and describing contact tracing approaches appropriately, as well as assessing and mitigating against potential risk to index patients, to increase self-efficacy and capacity to engage. Considering these findings, the potential for expanding existing contact tracing approaches should be explored to ensure the UK reaches and maintains its elimination targets.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Restrictive vs Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Secondary Analysis of the TRAIN Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Anemia is a prevalent condition among patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI); however, the optimal hemoglobin (Hb) threshold to initiate red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) is not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To assess which of 2 different Hb thresholds for guiding RBCT in patients with anemia and TBI is associated with a more favorable neurological outcome. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a preplanned secondary analysis of the Transfusion Strategies in Acute Brain Injured Patients multicentric randomized clinical trial, conducted in 72 intensive care units across 22 countries between September 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022. Follow-up was completed June 30, 2023. Only patients with TBI were included in the present analysis, conducted from February to May 2025. INTERVENTIONS: Liberal (transfusion at Hb <9 g/dL [to convert to g/L, multiply by 10.0]) vs restrictive (transfusion at Hb <7 g/dL) RBCT strategy over a maximum of 28 days. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the occurrence of unfavorable neurological outcome, defined as a Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended score of 1 to 5 (overall range, 1-8, with higher scores indicating more favorable outcome) at 180 days. In addition, 14 prespecified serious adverse events, including infection and cerebral ischemia, were assessed. Data were analyzed using both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol principles. RESULTS: Of 486 patients who presented with TBI (mean [SD] age, 46.8 [17.6] years; 347 [71.4%] male), 475 were included in the primary outcome analysis: 236 were randomized to the liberal transfusion strategy group and 239 to the restrictive transfusion strategy group. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. In total, 534 RBCTs were administered in the liberal transfusion strategy group, compared with 246 RBCTs in the restrictive group. At 180 days after randomization, 138 patients (58.5%) in the liberal group had unfavorable neurological outcome compared with 161 patients (67.4%) in the restrictive group (relative risk [RR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75-1.00]; P = .047; fragility index = 1). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of secondary outcomes (eg, 28-day mortality: 42 of 240 [17.5%] vs 51 of 244 [20.9%]; RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.58-1.21]; P = .34) or serious adverse events (eg, RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.88-1.43]; P = .34 for infection and RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.40-1.90]; P = .72 for cerebral ischemia). After adjustment for several confounders, being randomized to the liberal group was associated with a lower observed probability of unfavorable neurological outcome (odds ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.38-0.94]; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial, a liberal RBCT strategy was associated with a lower risk than a restrictive RBCT strategy of unfavorable neurological outcome at 180 days among patients with TBI. These findings should be interpreted with caution in light of the inherent uncertainty of the estimate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02968654.

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↗