SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Lumbar puncture”

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.

22 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Comparing the efficacy and safety of unilateral versus bilateral spinal anesthesia: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral spinal anesthesia has gained increasing attention in recent years. Emerging evidence suggests that it provides comparable analgesia to conventional bilateral spinal anesthesia while reducing adverse effects, and its efficacy and safety compared to bilateral spinal anesthesia remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of unilateral versus bilateral spinal anesthesia. DESIGN: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 10, 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included studies were randomized controlled trials involving adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing surgery under spinal anesthesia, comparing unilateral versus bilateral spinal anesthesia for efficacy and adverse effects. Studies that focused exclusively on either unilateral or bilateral spinal anesthesia were excluded. The comparator group used the same local anesthetic as the experimental group, with no restrictions on adjuncts (e.g. fentanyl, morphine). RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials including 1191 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with bilateral spinal anesthesia, unilateral spinal anesthesia has a longer onset of sensory blockade (MD = 2.58, 95% CI: 0.93 to 4.22, p = 0.002), a shorter duration of sensory blockade (MD = -27.83, 95% CI: -39.25 to -16.42, p < 0.00001). In addition, unilateral spinal anesthesia significantly reduced the incidence of hypotension (RR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.52, p < 0.0001), nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.56, p = 0.002), and post-dural puncture headache (RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.81, p = 0.009). No statistically significant differences were observed in bradycardia and urinary retention. Collectively, these findings support unilateral spinal anesthesia as a strategy that may enhance perioperative safety while maintaining adequate anesthetic efficacy in appropriately selected patients. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral spinal anesthesia may offer a favorable balance between anesthetic efficacy and safety compared with bilateral spinal anesthesia, although its clinical utility may depend on surgical duration and patient characteristics.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Is ophthalmology a pain-free career? A systematic review and meta-analysis of musculoskeletal pain among ophthalmologists.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the pooled prevalence, anatomical distribution, and occupational impact of work-related musculoskeletal (MSK) pain among ophthalmologists, and to identify modifiable ergonomic risk factors. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published data. The protocol was preregistered (PROSPERO CRD42023422368) and reported in accordance with PRISMA. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were 6691 ophthalmologists from 21 studies. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed) were searched for peer-reviewed quantitative studies reporting MSK pain prevalence in ophthalmologists. Pooled estimates with 95% CI were calculated using random-effects models; heterogeneity was quantified using I². MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of overall and site-specific MSK pain; effects on workload and productivity; prevalence of treatment or mitigation strategies. RESULTS: The pooled prevalence of any MSK pain was 70% (95% CI: 65%-75%; I² = 92%); neck (41%; 95% CI: 35%-47%; I² = 95%), lower back (36%; 95% CI: 32%-39%; I² = 87%), and shoulder pain (28%; 95% CI: 22%-35%; I² = 91%) were most common. Pain led to workload modification in up to 44% and contributed to reduced clinical volume, sick leave, or contemplation of early retirement. Forty-six percent (95% CI: 22%-71%) pursued no treatment; 39% (95% CI: 30%-49%) used medical therapy; and 29% (95% CI: 20%-41%) sought physiotherapy. Heterogeneity was high across studies, reflecting differing case definitions and self-reported measures. CONCLUSIONS: MSK pain affects most ophthalmologists, particularly in the cervical and lumbar regions and frequently alters practice patterns. These findings underscore the need for early ergonomic training, structured micro-breaks, and workspace redesign. Prospective intervention trials are required to establish causality and quantify benefit.

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

Evaluating the utility of melatonin in spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Spine surgery is increasingly performed worldwide, and acute postoperative stressors such as pain and anxiety remain highly prevalent despite historical management with opioids and other pharmacological agents. Recently, interest has emerged in melatonin administration given its endogenous physiological roles, low cost, favorable adverse event profile, and documented benefits throughout surgical literature. PURPOSE: This study aims to consolidate the existing evidence on melatonin's utility specifically in spine surgery, an area not yet comprehensively evaluated, to inform clinical practice and enhance spine surgeon comprehension. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Preregistered on PROSPERO, this systematic review queried PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science on November 21st, 2025, for studies reporting outcomes following melatonin administration in patients undergoing spine surgery. METHODS: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool. Extracted variables included demographics, comparator medications, dosages, and other relevant details. Statistical analyses included frequency-weighted means (FWMs), associated standard deviations, narrative syntheses, and limited meta-analyses, where appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 6 moderate-quality randomized trials were included from 749 screened. Melatonin (3-10 mg) was administered to 227 patients (FWM age=43.3±8.6 years; 46.2% male; BMI=26.6±3.2 kg/m2), placebo to 125 patients (age=43.2±10.1 years; 60% male; BMI=28.5±4.3 kg/m2), and active pharmacologic comparators (fentanyl, gabapentin, dexmedetomidine, zolpidem) to 151 patients (age=46.6±8.9 years; 40.5% male; BMI=26.3±3.5 kg/m2). Procedures primarily involved uncomplicated lumbar laminectomies (1-4 levels), with outcomes assessed up to 24 hours postoperatively. Melatonin was associated with significant improvements in early postoperative VAS-pain scores, blood-pressure-related, analgesic-related, and anxiety-related outcomes versus placebo across most reporting studies. Compared with active pharmacologic agents, significant benefits were observed only in select nausea- and anxiety-related instances. Limited meta-analysis (n=2) demonstrated higher 24-hour VAS-pain for melatonin versus gabapentin, though mean difference was near-negligible and harbored extensive statistical constraints. CONCLUSION: Melatonin demonstrates variable utility following spine surgery, with generally consistent anxiolysis and frequent benefit versus placebo but less consistent and comparatively weaker efficacy relative to active pharmacologic comparators. Future outcome-homogenous studies incorporating more granular, expansive comparator arms and more robust quantitative analyses are needed to further elucidate melatonin's role in advancing spine care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Humans↗