SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Postoperative recovery”

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.

333 records · Page 19Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Hip Arthroscopy-Assisted Management of Pipkin Types I and II Femoral Head Fracture-Dislocations: Mid-Term Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Hip arthroscopy-assisted surgery has been proposed as a minimally invasive option for femoral head fractures; however, evidence with mid-term follow-up remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopy-assisted management for Pipkin Types I and II femoral head fracture-dislocations with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: This retrospective study included 23 consecutive adults (19 Pipkin I and 4 Pipkin II) treated with hip arthroscopy-assisted fragment excision or internal fixation between March 2013 and January 2020. Preoperative computed tomography was used for surgical planning, and fixation was placed with arthroscopic headless screws. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Thompson-Epstein (T-E) criteria. Radiographic evaluation included avascular necrosis (AVN), heterotopic ossification (HO; Brooker), osteoarthritis (OA; Tönnis), and fracture reduction quality (Matta's criteria). Group comparisons were evaluated using independent samples t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Fisher's exact test. The mean follow-up was 86.2 ± 21.2 months. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 19 males and 4 females with a mean age of 28.7 ± 9.9 years. Fifteen patients underwent fixation and eight underwent excision. The final mean HHS was 98.3 ± 1.9, with 21 patients (91%) achieving excellent and 2 (9%) good T-E criteria. There were no significant differences between the fixation and excision groups in demographic characteristics, operative time, or functional outcomes (all p > 0.05); however, hospital stay was significantly shorter in the excision group (2.9 ± 0.6 vs. 5.5 ± 4.6 days, p = 0.028). In the fixation group, mean maximal displacement improved from 7.6 mm preoperatively to 2.6 mm postoperatively, with anatomic reduction achieved in 6 cases (40%), imperfect in 6 (40%), and poor in 3 (20%). Patients with Pipkin Type I fractures had significantly higher HHS than those with Type II fractures (98.7 ± 1.7 vs. 96.0 ± 0.8, p = 0.018). Complications were rare, with one case of Brooker Grade I HO and one case of mild OA. No AVN or total hip arthroplasty occurred during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Hip arthroscopy-assisted management of selected Pipkin Type I and II femoral head fractures yields excellent mid-term clinical outcomes with acceptable radiographic reduction and a low complication rate. This minimally invasive technique represents a viable alternative in appropriately selected patients when fragment characteristics and surgical expertise permit.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Hypoxaemia and mortality in children with lower respiratory infection in low-income and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypoxaemic lower respiratory infections (LRIs) are a leading cause of childhood mortality, with the highest burden in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Hypoxaemia-low peripheral capillary oxyhaemoglobin saturation (SpO2)-is a marker of severity, and WHO recommends hospitalisation and oxygen administration for patients with SpO2 <90%. We aimed to update estimates from a 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis examining the association between hypoxaemia and mortality among children with LRIs in LMICs by incorporating studies published over the subsequent decade and evaluating mortality risk across multiple SpO2 thresholds. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis by searching PubMed, Embase, LILACS, Global Index Medicus, Web of Science, and Scopus for peer-reviewed studies published between Jan 1, 2015, and June 18, 2025, with combined terms related to pneumonia, children, mortality, and LMICs. We also included selected earlier studies through citation checking. Eligible studies reported associations between hypoxaemia and mortality in children younger than 5 years with LRIs in LMICs. We excluded case reports and case series with fewer than five deaths, studies focused exclusively on the neonatal period, and those limited to children with specific comorbidities or to postoperative patients, for consistency with the original review. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Eligible studies were combined with those from the original review and analysed using random-effects models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) by hypoxaemia threshold subgroup. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023433946). FINDINGS: We identified 7734 records; 26 new studies met inclusion criteria and were combined with 18 from the original review. The 44 studies were published between 1993 and 2024 and were primarily from Africa (25 [57%] of 44) or Asia (19 [43%]); some studies spanned multiple locations. Data from 33 studies including 155 633 participants were included in the primary meta-analysis. Hypoxaemia of any threshold was associated with higher odds of LRI mortality (OR 4·36 [95% CI 3·52-5·39]) compared with no hypoxaemia. For SpO2 <90% versus 90-100%, OR for death was 4·75 (95% CI 3·42-6·58). For SpO2 90-94% versus 95-100%, mortality risk was more than twice as high (OR 2·27 [95% CI 1·22-4·25]). Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 64-85% across analyses), and eight (24%) of 33 studies in the primary meta-analysis had a high overall risk of bias; however, a sensitivity analysis restricted to studies with low or moderate risk of bias yielded similar results. INTERPRETATION: SpO2 <90% strongly predicts mortality in children with LRIs in LMICs. Children with SpO2 90-94% also have elevated risk, suggesting that paediatric LRI and pneumonia treatment algorithms should consider management at this hypoxaemia threshold. FUNDING: None.

Journal Article↗

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

Arthroscopic Correction of Pincer-Type FAI in the Presence of Acetabular Retroversion Results in Excellent Patient-Reported Outcomes With Low Risk of Reoperation or Conversion to Arthroplasty at Minimum 5 Years.

BACKGROUND: Acetabular retroversion is a distinct morphologic variation that may result in pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The role of arthroscopic management within this cohort is not fully understood. PURPOSE: To assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and survivorship at 5-year follow-up in a series of cases undergoing arthroscopic correction of pincer-type FAI with acetabular retroversion. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A single-center, prospective hip preservation registry was reviewed for all cases undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for symptomatic FAI between January 2014 and July 2020, with documented radiographic assessment of acetabular retroversion (ie, presence or absence of crossover sign, ischial spine sign, and/or posterior wall sign on a standing, standardized anteroposterior radiograph). Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, concomitant pathologies (protrusio, Perthes disease, avascular necrosis), excessive pelvic rotation or tilt on radiographs, and/or no crossover sign. Cases were assigned to 1 of 2 groups: moderate-global retroversion group (study group: crossover sign plus either or both ischial spine sign and posterior wall sign) or control group (crossover sign only). Case-control (1:1) fuzzy matching was performed based on age (±2 years), sex, and Tönnis grade (exact). Clinical outcome evaluation included assessment of PROMs (modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS], 36-item Short Form [SF36], University of California-Los Angeles Activity Scale [UCLA], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]), achievement of Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), satisfaction, rates of revision arthroscopy, and arthroplasty-free survivorship, both preoperatively and 5 years postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v29. RESULTS: A total of 201 cases (120 global, 81 moderate) in the moderate-global retroversion group were matched with 201 control cases. Mean age was 30.6 ± 10.2 years; the sample was 90% male. The rate of revision arthroscopy was similar: n = 11 (6%) in both groups (P = .974). No conversion to periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) occurred in either group. Arthroplasty-free survivorship was 98.2% (retroversion group) and 98.8% (control group) (χ2 = 0.189; df = 1; P = .664). Significant improvements in PROMs from baseline were noted (P < .001 for all, in both groups). In total, 81% (moderate-global retroversion group) and 73% (control group) were satisfied at 5 years (P = .103). No significant difference was seen in PASS achievement rates for any of the PROMs between groups: mHHS, 62.1% versus 65.9% (P = .498); UCLA, 60.0% versus 52.2% (P = .192); SF36, 59.8% versus 64.7% (P = .458); WOMAC, 63.5% versus 67.3% (P = .553), for moderate-global retroversion and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Hip arthroscopy for moderate and global acetabular retroversion resulted in significant improvement in clinical outcomes, with high satisfaction and arthroplasty-free survivorship at 5 years, consistent with a case-control matched group without acetabular retroversion (focal retroversion, pincer FAI). Arthroscopy alone, without anteverting PAO, was an effective surgical management approach for symptomatic FAI in the presence of acetabular retroversion.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Distal versus proximal radial access for diagnostic cerebral angiography: comparative outcomes and learning curve analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Distal transradial access (dTRA) is an alternative to proximal transradial access (pTRA) for neuroangiography, but comparative real-world data and evidence on its early learning curve remain limited. We compared procedural performance and access-site complications between dTRA and pTRA and evaluated the early learning curve of dTRA. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 470 diagnostic cerebral angiography procedures, representing 421 unique patients, performed via radial access at a single center between January 2025 and February 2026, including 237 dTRA and 233 pTRA procedures. Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI) category, aortic arch type, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant use, procedural performance, and clinically assessed access-site events were compared between groups. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) was assessed by postoperative bedside pulse examination and confirmed with Doppler ultrasound when clinical findings were uncertain. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of RAO, persistent bleeding or repeated compression, hand edema, and a composite access-site event endpoint. Because repeated procedures occurred in a subset of patients and event counts were limited, first-procedure sensitivity analysis and analyses of infrequent outcomes were interpreted cautiously. The dTRA learning process was assessed in the first 100 dTRA cases performed by a single operator using multivariable regression, cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis, segmented trend analysis, and phase-based comparisons. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups, including age, male sex, BMI category, aortic arch type, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant use. Compared with pTRA, dTRA was associated with more puncture attempts (3.0 [2.0-4.0] vs 2.0 [1.0-3.0], P < 0.001), longer puncture time (2.0 [1.0-5.0] vs 2.0 [1.0-3.0] min, P = 0.003), lower first-pass success (19.4% vs 35.2%, P < 0.001), and a higher crossover rate (11.4% vs 6.0%, P = 0.037). However, dTRA was associated with a lower clinically assessed RAO rate (2.5% vs 7.7%, P = 0.011). On multivariable analysis, pTRA was independently associated with higher odds of RAO (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.26-8.49, P = 0.015) and the composite access-site event endpoint (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.55-6.28, P = 0.001). Similar findings were observed in a sensitivity analysis restricted to the first procedure per patient. In the first 100 dTRA cases, cumulative dTRA experience was independently associated with shorter total procedure time (beta = -0.074 min/case, P = 0.009), while CUSUM and moving-average analyses suggested that the major learning effect occurred within approximately the first 10-15 cases. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective single-operator cohort, dTRA was associated with lower clinically assessed RAO than pTRA despite greater access difficulty. The early learning effect was mainly reflected in shorter total procedure time. These findings support the feasibility of dTRA but should be interpreted cautiously given the study's observational design and limited anatomical data.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Astigmatic vector outcomes after FS-LASIK versus SMILE for high myopic astigmatism: a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study without cyclotorsion compensation.

PURPOSE: To compare astigmatic correction vector outcomes between femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE, also termed Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction, KLEx) without intraoperative cyclotorsion compensation in patients with high myopic astigmatism (- 2.00 to - 3.75 D), and to clarify procedure-specific correction tendencies under this non-standardized alignment protocol. METHODS: This single-center retrospective comparative cohort study enrolled 155 eyes (one eye randomly selected per patient) that underwent FS-LASIK (80 eyes) or SMILE/KLEx (75 eyes) for high myopic astigmatism correction from January 2023 to July 2024 in Beijing Fenglian Jiayue Lige Clinic. Intraoperative cyclotorsion compensation was intentionally disabled to isolate inherent procedural astigmatism correction characteristics. Standardized Alpins vectorial analysis was performed at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: 12-month Alpins correction index (CI). Multivariable propensity score adjustment was applied to mitigate confounding by clinical treatment selection bias. Statistical multiplicity control was implemented for secondary vector and visual outcomes. RESULTS: Baseline demographic, refractive, corneal and ocular biometric parameters were balanced between groups after propensity matching. No statistically significant intergroup differences were detected in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), residual cylinder, safety index or efficacy index at 3 and 12 months (all P > 0.05). Under the non-cyclotorsion-compensated protocol, significant intergroup differences were identified in the magnitude of surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), correction index (CI), and magnitude error (ME) at both follow-up timepoints (all P < 0.0001). Target induced astigmatism (TIA), difference vector (DV), index of success (IOS), and angle error (AE) magnitudes were comparable between groups (all P > 0.05). The vector mean axis of DV differed significantly between groups at 3 and 12 months (Watson-Williams circular test, all P < 0.0001). No reoperations were documented in clinic medical records for either cohort. No standardized dry eye questionnaires, tear film testing or corneal nerve density metrics were collected to quantify dry eye adverse events; only unstructured clinical notes were reviewed for complication screening. CONCLUSIONS: Under surgical alignment without cyclotorsion compensation, FS-LASIK and SMILE/KLEx both yielded acceptable visual and refractive safety/efficacy for high myopic astigmatism (- 2.00 to - 3.75 D) at 1-year follow-up, but demonstrated divergent astigmatism correction tendencies: FS-LASIK exhibited relative astigmatism overcorrection (vector mean DV: - 0.35 ± 0.43 D × 91°, CI > 1), while SMILE/KLEx showed relative undercorrection (vector mean DV: - 0.21 ± 0.53 D × 12°, CI < 1). These correction biases are specific to the study's manual limbal alignment protocol without cyclotorsion tracking and cannot be generalized to modern optimized surgical platforms equipped with automated cyclotorsion compensation. Residual refractive errors across both groups are likely multifactorial, including differential corneal stromal healing responses, divergent femtosecond/excimer laser tissue modification mechanisms, and uncorrected intraoperative ocular cyclotorsion.

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

[Effect of electroacupuncture combined with suspension exercise therapy on lower limb motor function in elderly patients with post-stroke spastic hemiplegia].

OBJECTIVE: To observe the efficacy of electroacupuncture (EA) combined with suspension exercise therapy in elderly patients with post-stroke spastic hemiplegia and its effect on lower limb motor function. METHODS: A total of 120 elderly patients with post-stroke spastic hemiplegia were enrolled. Using a 2×2 factorial design, all the patients were assigned to a group A (conventional treatment), a group B (conventional treatment combined with suspension exercise therapy), a group C (conventional treatment combined with EA at Jiaji [EX-B2] and limb acupoints), and a group D(conventional treatment combined with suspension exercise therapy and EA at Jiaji [EX-B2] and limb acupoints), with 30 patients in each group. The main acupoints were bilateral Jiaji (EX-B2) points at the C2-C7, T2-T12, L1-L5, and S1 segments. The adjunct acupoints included Jianyu (LI15), Binao (LI14), Huantiao (GB30), Chengfu (BL36), etc. on the affected side.Continuous wave was applied at a frequency of 100 Hz with a current intensity of 1.5-3.0 mA, and needles were retained for 30 min, once daily for 4 weeks. Before treatment and after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, the modified Ashworth scale (MAS),Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA), Berg balance scale (BBS), and Barthel index scores were evaluated in the four groups. Root mean square (RMS) values of surface electromyography (sEMG) of the erector spinae and rectus abdominis muscles on the affected side, as well as balance function indexes, including the mean pressure symmetry index (SI), contact area SI, ellipse area, and displacement distances of the center of pressure in the anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) directions, were measured. Clinical efficacy was also compared among the four groups. RESULTS: After 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, MAS scores in all groups were lower than those before treatment (P<0.05), whereas FMA, BBS, and Barthel index scores were higher than those before treatment (P<0.05). After 4 weeks of treatment, MAS scores were lower than those after 2 weeks of treatment (P<0.05), whereas FMA, BBS, and Barthel index scores were higher than those after 2 weeks of treatment (P<0.05) in the four groups. At both 2 and 4 weeks after treatment, group D had lower MAS scores (P<0.05) and higher FMA,BBS, and Barthel index scores (P<0.05) than the other three groups. After 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, RMS values of sEMG of the erector spinae and rectus abdominis muscles on the affected side at all tested angles were higher than those before treatment in all groups (P<0.05), and the values after 4 weeks of treatment were higher than those after 2 weeks of treatment(P<0.05). At both 2 and 4 weeks after treatment, all these indexes in the group D were higher than those in the other three groups (P<0.05). After 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, the mean pressure SI, contact area SI and ellipse area of each group were lower than those before treatment (P<0.05). After 4 weeks of treatment, the mean pressure SI, contact area SI and ellipse area of each group were lower than those after 2 weeks of treatment (P<0.05). After 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, the AP displacement distances of groups A, C and D were lower than those before treatment (P<0.05), and after 4 weeks of treatment, the AP displacement distances of groups A, C and D were lower than those after 2 weeks of treatment (P<0.05);after 2 weeks of treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in AP displacement distance in the group B compared with before treatment (P>0.05), and after 4 weeks of treatment, the AP displacement distance of group B was lower than that before treatment (P<0.05). After 2 weeks of treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in ML displacement distance in group A compared with before treatment (P>0.05); after 4 weeks of treatment, the ML displacement distance of group A was lower than that before treatment (P<0.05). After 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in ML displacement distance in the group B compared with that before treatment (P>0.05).After 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, the ML displacement distances of groups C and D were lower than those before treatment(P<0.05), and after 4 weeks of treatment, the ML displacement distances of groups C and D were lower than those after 2 weeks of treatment (P<0.05). At both 2 and 4 weeks after treatment, mean pressure SI, contact area SI, ellipse area, and AP and ML displacement distances in the group D were lower than those in the other three groups (P<0.05). Factorial analysis of variance showed that EA had the strongest main effect on FMA score (F=6.243, P<0.05), suspension exercise therapy had the strongest main effect on BBS score (F=6.292, P<0.05), and the interaction effect was most significant for MAS score (F=5.941, P<0.05), indicating that the combined therapy produced a greater synergistic effect on reducing muscle tone than on the other outcome measures. The total effective rate in the group D was 93.3% (28/30), which was higher than those in the group A (53.3% [16/30]), group B (56.7% [17/30]), and group C (66.7% [20/30], P<0.05). CONCLUSION: EA combined with suspension exercise therapy could effectively promote the recovery of lower limb function in elderly patients with post-stroke spastic hemiplegia, improve motor and balance functions, and enhance activities of daily living.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Cardiorespiratory training for people with stroke.

RATIONALE: Low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness are common after stroke and are associated with post-stroke disability and increased risk of secondary stroke. Cardiorespiratory training interventions aim to increase cardiorespiratory fitness, improve physical function, reduce disability, and help prevent future strokes. Clinical guidelines recommend exercise as part of lifestyle modification for secondary prevention, and strongly recommend exercise for rehabilitation. This review is one of three reviews that were originally a single review on physical fitness training for stroke. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to determine whether cardiorespiratory training after stroke has an effect on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2025, we searched nine bibliographic databases and two trials registers to identify studies for inclusion in the review. We checked reference lists, tracked citations, and contacted experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing cardiorespiratory training interventions with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function, assessed at the end of the intervention and the end of the longest follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. SYNTHESIS METHODS: The studies evaluated different comparisons (e.g. cardiorespiratory training versus no intervention/waiting list control or versus attention control or versus usual care), which we synthesised into a single comparison: cardiorespiratory training versus control. We used random-effects meta-analysis on arm-level data (risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). For outcome data that we did not meta-analyse, we followed Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for critical outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 53 studies (2672 participants, with an average age of 61.9 years). Most studies recruited ambulatory participants in the early subacute (7 days to 3 months) or chronic (> 6 months) phases of recovery. Exercise duration recommendations were met in 49 studies, and frequency recommendations in 48. Twenty-eight studies lacked balanced exposure between groups. Programme duration was 12 weeks or more in 16 studies (maximum: 24 weeks). Sixteen studies had a post-intervention follow-up period (12 weeks to 12 months from baseline). One study planned a six-month follow-up but did not report it. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease deaths at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 36 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence) or the end of follow-up (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 713 participants; high-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of disability slightly at the end of intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; 17 studies, 1073 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressed using the Barthel Index (0 to 20), the equivalent effect is MD 1.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.74. It is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is +1.85). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.08; 5 studies, 347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at the end of intervention (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; 8 studies, 544 participants; high-certainty evidence) and probably does not affect them at the end of follow-up (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 4 studies, 412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether cardiorespiratory training affects systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention (MD -2.12, 95% CI -5.81 to 1.57; 9 studies, 535 participants; very low-certainty evidence) (MCID -2 mmHg) or follow-up (MD 0.93, 95% CI -4.30 to 6.16; 3 studies, 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence); the 95% CIs include the MCID. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 ml/kg/min) at the end of intervention (MD 2.37, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; 13 studies, 608 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); it is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (MCID +3.5 ml/kg/min). The effect may be similar at the end of follow-up (MD 2.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.16; 5 studies, 237 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis favoured longer interventions. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight increase in comfortable walking speed (metres per second) at the end of intervention (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12; 16 studies, 647 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect is not clinically meaningful (MCID +0.13). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 3 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of balance at the end of intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.47; 18 studies, 772 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressing using the Berg Balance Scale, the equivalent effect is MD 2.09, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.07; and it is unclear if it is clinically meaningful (MCID of +2). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12; 6 studies, 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Overall, our certainty about the evidence is limited for most outcomes by imprecision (small number of studies and participants) or risks of bias (e.g. imbalanced exposure doses) or both. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cardiorespiratory training after stroke does not affect mortality or the incidence of secondary events at the end of the aerobic exercise training programme or end of follow-up. It may increase fitness, reduce disability, increase walking speed, and improve balance at the end of intervention, but it is unclear if these improvements are clinically meaningful. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to fully understand the potential benefits and long-term effects of cardiorespiratory training and the optimal exercise prescription. FUNDING: No dedicated funding REGISTRATION: Protocol (and previous versions) available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316.

Humans↗