Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Surgical Procedures, Operative”

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.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

437 records · Page 25Linked to original sources
PubMed2026

Performance of AI-Based Screening Tools for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Across Apnea-Hypopnea Index Thresholds: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is highly prevalent but remains substantially underdiagnosed. Polysomnography (PSG) is the reference standard, but its cost and limited availability constrain large-scale case identification. AI-based screening tools may support risk stratification and referral prioritization, but their diagnostic accuracy across apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) thresholds remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based OSA screening tools at AHI thresholds of ≥5, ≥15, and ≥30 events/hour, with emphasis on models using non-PSG-derived inputs. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published from January 1, 2016, to May 3, 2026. Eligible studies included adults evaluated for suspected OSA or recruited from population-based cohorts, assessed AI-based models intended or interpretable for OSA screening, risk prediction, or screening-oriented severity classification, used PSG as the reference standard, and reported sufficient data to construct or reconstruct 2×2 contingency tables. Diagnostic accuracy was synthesized separately by AHI threshold and input source using bivariate random-effects models, with 95% CIs and prediction intervals (PIs). Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), respectively. RESULTS: A total of 60 studies were included, of which 47 contributed data to the meta-analysis. At AHI thresholds of ≥5, ≥15, and ≥30 events/hour, pooled sensitivities were 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96; 95% PI 0.71-0.99), 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89; 95% PI 0.66-0.96), and 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87; 95% PI 0.61-0.94), respectively; the corresponding specificities were 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.84; 95% PI 0.30-0.96), 0.81 (95% CI 0.75-0.85; 95% PI 0.39-0.96), and 0.91 (95% CI 0.87-0.94; 95% PI 0.55-0.99), respectively. The corresponding areas under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.943, 0.907, and 0.920. For non-PSG-derived tools, sensitivities were 0.92, 0.85, and 0.81, and specificities were 0.70, 0.74, and 0.85 at the 3 thresholds, respectively. For PSG-derived models, sensitivities were 0.96, 0.90, and 0.85, and specificities were 0.82, 0.88, and 0.96, respectively. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested performance variation across selected study and model characteristics, including region, algorithmic framework, data source, and validation method. CONCLUSIONS: AI-based tools showed generally favorable screening performance for OSA across clinically relevant AHI thresholds, although wide PIs suggest variable performance across future comparable populations and settings. By synthesizing diagnostic accuracy across 3 AHI thresholds and distinguishing non-PSG-derived from PSG-derived models, this review extends previous broad or modality-specific reviews and offers a clinically interpretable, pathway-specific basis for linking model performance to intended use. The findings may clarify potential roles for non-PSG-derived tools in front-end screening and referral prioritization and for PSG-derived models in reduced-channel assessment and sleep-laboratory workflow support. Given substantial heterogeneity, limited external validation, and low or very low certainty of evidence, prospective validation is needed before routine implementation.

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 T&#xf6;nnis 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 (&#xb1;2 years), sex, and T&#xf6;nnis 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 &#xb1; 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) (&#x3c7;2 = 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

Efficacy and safety of Vertebral Body Sliding Osteotomy (VBSO) versus Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is an established treatment for complex cervical myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), yet it carries risks of dural injury and graft-related failure. Vertebral body sliding osteotomy (VBSO) is a novel technique that avoids direct OPLL manipulation by translating the vertebral body anteriorly to enlarge the spinal canal. Although early studies suggest VBSO may reduce complications, evidence remains limited to retrospective cohorts from the technique's developers, with no high-level synthesis directly comparing it to ACCF. We therefore conducted this meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters between VBSO and ACCF, while critically evaluating the certainty of the evidence and its generalizability. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (through June 2025) identified four retrospective cohort studies (449 patients; VBSO n&#x2009;=&#x2009;209, ACCF n&#x2009;=&#x2009;240). A critical limitation of the included evidence is that all studies originated from a single institution (Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea) with overlapping enrollment periods (2006-2020), increasing the risk of duplicate patient cohorts. Furthermore, the first author (D.-H. Lee) is the same across all included studies, introducing substantial surgeon-expertise bias. Outcomes included neurological recovery, functional outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Neurological recovery and functional outcomes were comparable between groups. ACCF showed slightly higher postoperative JOA scores (MD -0.59, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.22; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), though the clinical relevance is uncertain. VBSO was associated with reduced risks of graft subsidence (RR 0.23; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), pseudarthrosis (RR 0.25; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), revision surgery (RR 0.17; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), and neurological deterioration (RR 0.17; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.02). CSF leakage appeared to be less frequent with VBSO, but the difference was not statistically significant. VBSO was also associated with greater postoperative cervical lordosis and shorter hospital stays. However, these findings must be interpreted with extreme caution: leave-one-out sensitivity analyses revealed that the results for postoperative JOA score, neurological deterioration, and pseudarthrosis were fragile and driven by a single large study, meaning these apparent advantages may not be robust. In addition, GRADE assessment revealed very low certainty across all assessed outcomes. Given the very low certainty of evidence, the preliminary nature of the available data, the fragility of several key findings, and the critical limitations of the underlying studies (single institution, overlapping patient cohorts, developer bias, and systematic imbalance in follow-up duration), the observed differences should be considered hypothesis-generating rather than definitive. VBSO should not be considered a proven superior alternative to ACCF based on the current evidence. Prospective, multicenter, international studies with balanced follow-up durations conducted by independent surgical teams are required before broader adoption can be recommended.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Patients with Exposure Therapy Resistant Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (TETRO): Study Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a disabling mental disorder, characterized by obsessions, compulsions, and substantial morbidity. Approximately 50% of adults with OCD fail to achieve satisfactory outcomes from first-line treatments, such as exposure therapy with response prevention (ERP), with or without medication. This leads to chronic social, educational, and occupational impairment. While invasive procedures such as deep brain stimulation are available for severe, treatment-refractory cases, a need remains for less invasive alternatives. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive intervention, shows promise in reducing OCD symptoms. Unlike in depression, rTMS is not yet reimbursed for OCD in the Dutch healthcare system. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of low-frequency (1Hz) rTMS targeting the presupplementary motor area (pre-SMA) compared to sham rTMS as an adjuvant treatment to ERP in adults with OCD with inadequate response to first-line treatment. METHODS: A total of 250 adults with OCD will be enrolled in this multicenter randomized controlled trial. Participants will be randomly assigned to ERP combined with either active or sham 1Hz rTMS over the pre-SMA. Treatment is administered 4 times weekly for at least 5 weeks (20 rTMS-ERP sessions), with optional extension of 1 to 2 weeks, up to 28 rTMS-ERP sessions. Clinical assessments occur at baseline, weekly during treatment, posttreatment, and at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. Participants undergo pre- and posttreatment (functional) (MRI) scans, including a symptom provocation task. Blood sampling takes place pre- and posttreatment and at 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome is OCD severity at posttreatment, as measured by the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS). Secondary outcomes include functional improvement, quality of life, and societal costs. Pretreatment symptom profiles, genotype, and brain network topology will be analyzed as predictors of response and relapse risk. Pre-to-post treatment change in blood-based and magnetic resonance (MR)-based neuroplasticity markers will help explore differential mechanisms between ERP alone and combined rTMS-ERP. We expect that the verum rTMS protocol will be cost-effective compared to sham-rTMS. RESULTS: Recruitment started in April 2022, and as of February 2026, 201 participants have been enrolled. Posttreatment assessments are projected to be completed in December 2026, with final one-year follow-up evaluations anticipated by the end of 2027. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first adequately powered randomized controlled trial examining efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and mechanism of action of rTMS for OCD as adjuvant therapy to ERP. In case of efficacy and/or cost-effectiveness, it will pave the way for rTMS as insured health care for adults with OCD in the Netherlands, and possibly other European countries. Furthermore, this trial will provide insight into the mechanisms of treatment response to intensive ERP, with and without adjunctive rTMS, as well as potential side effects, individual variability, and long-term outcomes in adults with OCD.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Chemoradiotherapy versus short-course radiotherapy for response-adapted organ preservation in early-stage and intermediate-stage rectal cancer (STAR-TREC): 12-month results of an international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard treatment for most early-stage and intermediate-stage rectal cancer but can cause substantial perioperative morbidity, functional impairment, and reduced quality of life. We assessed whether long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) could increase organ preservation and reduce surgery, toxicity, and quality-of-life harms without compromising oncological outcomes. METHODS: STAR-TREC is an international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial in five European countries. Eligible patients were aged 16 years or older in the UK or aged 18 years or older elsewhere, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and rectal adenocarcinoma (&#x2264;40 mm staged as mrT1-T3bN0). In phase 2, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to LCCRT-based organ preservation (LCCRT-OP; 50 Gy in 25 fractions plus oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 twice daily), SCRT-based organ preservation (SCRT-OP; 25 Gy in five fractions), or primary TME. Phase 2 assessed feasibility, with recruitment at months 12 and 24 as the primary endpoint and feasibility thresholds of four or more and six or more randomisations per month, respectively. Phase 3 adopted a partially randomised patient-preference design, allowing participants to choose either organ preservation or TME. Participants that chose organ preservation were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive LCCRT-OP or SCRT-OP using centralised, computer-generated assignment, with stratification by country and MRI T category (&#x2264;T3a vs T3b) using minimisation. The phase 3 primary endpoint was organ-preservation 30 months after treatment initiation, defined as absence of TME, stoma, or local recurrence, which was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants in phase 2 and phase 3. After a planned interim analysis of unmasked phase 2 data, the trial steering committee and independent data monitoring committee recommended reporting a 12-month, modified intention-to-treat analysis of implementation outcomes for participants recruited before Aug 8, 2023. This study is registered with ISRCTN (14240288) and is closed. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2017, and April 8, 2024, 503 participants were enrolled at 37 sites. Phase 2 enrolled 120 participants, with recruitment rates of three and six participants per month at months 12 and 24, respectively. Overall, 12-month TME-free survival was 60% (47 of 78 participants). After phase 3 recruitment ended, interim analysis of unmasked phase 2 data showed an early TME-free survival benefit with LCCRT versus SCRT (12-month median TME-free survival not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] vs 7&#xb7;6 months [95% CI 6&#xb7;4-not reached]; hazard ratio [HR] 3&#xb7;7 [95% CI 1&#xb7;7-8&#xb7;0]; posterior probability of superiority >99&#xb7;5%). The trial steering committee and independent data monitoring committee therefore recommended expanded analysis of 426 participants recruited before Aug 8, 2023: 120 from phase 2 and 306 from phase 3. 17 participants withdrew before treatment, leaving 409 in the modified intention-to-treat population: 163 allocated to LCCRT, 168 to SCRT, and 78 to primary TME. 116 (28%) participants were female and 293 (72%) were male. Among participants who opted for organ preservation, 12-month TME-free survival was 78&#xb7;5% (95% CI 72&#xb7;4-85&#xb7;1) with LCCRT and 60&#xb7;6% (53&#xb7;6-68&#xb7;4) with SCRT (HR 1&#xb7;90 [95% CI 1&#xb7;29-2&#xb7;81]). The most common grade 3-4 serious adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders (four [2%] with LCCRT vs six [4%] with SCRT vs six [8%] with TME) and procedural complications (three [2%] with LCCRT vs five [3%] with SCRT vs five [6%] with TME). One participant allocated to primary TME died after an anastomotic leak. INTERPRETATION: These early results support a response-adapted organ-preservation approach, with LCCRT appearing more effective than SCRT at 12 months. Organ-preservation might also reduce treatment-related toxicity compared with primary TME. Longer follow-up is needed for the prespecified 30-month endpoint and definitive functional and oncological outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Stand Up to Cancer, Dutch Cancer Society, Danish Cancer Society, Kom Op Tegen Kanker, Cancerfonden, ALF Region Stockholm, RCC Region Stockholm.

Humans↗