SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Femoral Neck Fractures”

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.

94 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Marginal fit and five-year outcomes of posterior monolithic zirconia restorations: A randomized paired and observational clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal fit and five-year clinical performance of posterior 5 mol% yttria-partially stabilized zirconia restorations. A randomized paired comparison with lithium disilicate crowns was performed for marginal fit. METHODS: A total of 65 posterior restorations were placed in 38 patients, including 32 zirconia crowns, 17 lithium disilicate crowns, and 16 zirconia partial coverage restorations. In the randomized paired comparison, 17 patients received one lithium disilicate crown and one zirconia crown. Additional zirconia crowns (n=15) and zirconia partial coverage restorations (n=16) were included in a prospective observational cohort. The primary outcome was marginal fit within the randomized cohort. Marginal and internal fit were assessed using the replica technique. Marginal and internal gap values were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test; clinical outcomes were analyzed descriptively, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for survival and complication-free survival. Clinical performance was assessed using CDA criteria, periodontal parameters, complication recording, and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical examinations were performed at baseline and at 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months. RESULTS: Mean marginal gap values at the crown margin were 46 ±33 µm for lithium disilicate crowns and 50 ±32 µm for zirconia crowns (p>0.05). No restoration required replacement, resulting in 100% restoration survival after a median follow-up of 60 months (range: 57-64 months). Most complications were biological or functional, including endodontic, periodontal, occlusal, and proximal-contact-related events. One zirconia partial coverage restoration exhibited a small ceramic fracture managed by polishing. The Kaplan-Meier probability of complication-free survival was 76.4% for zirconia crowns, 66.7% for lithium disilicate crowns, and 87.5% for zirconia partial coverage restorations. CONCLUSIONS: In the randomized paired comparison, 5 mol% yttria-partially stabilized zirconia crowns showed marginal gap values similar to lithium disilicate crowns. All restorations remained in situ during the observation period. Lower complication-free survival was mainly related to biological and functional events and should be interpreted separately from restoration survival. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Clinical evidence for posterior 5 mol% yttria-partially stabilized zirconia restorations remains limited. This study provides mid-term clinical data on crowns and partial coverage restorations. In the randomized full-crown comparison, marginal fit was similar to that of lithium disilicate crowns, supporting the clinical consideration of monolithic zirconia restorations for posterior teeth.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

The impact of an intact rotator cuff on the outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of 20,924 patients.

BACKGROUND: While reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is commonly utilized for rotator cuff tear arthropathy, indications have expanded to include, primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) with intact cuff. The presence of an intact cuff may influence outcomes after rTSA because preserved cuff musculature can contribute to shoulder stability and force which could potentially improve postoperative function and reduce complication rates. However, studies have reported contradictory results on whether or not an intact cuff would provide better outcomes in patients receiving an rTSA. METHODS: This is a systematic review and Meta-analysis performed according the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were queried through December 2025. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies comparing the outcomes of rTSA based on whether patients had a diagnosis of GHOA with intact cuff, or had a deficient rotator cuff (ie had a diagnosis of rotator cuff tears without OA, or cuff tear arthropathy). Extracted data included adverse events, improvement in patient reported outcome measures, and improvement in range of motion. RESULTS: Eleven retrospective articles and 1 prospective article met the inclusion criteria with 4,542 in the GHOA with intact cuff group and 16,382 in the cuff-deficient group (cuff tear arthropathy: 15,423 patients; rotator cuff tear: 959 patients). Patients undergoing rTSA for GHOA and intact cuff had a lower rate of revisions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.41- 0.68, P < .001; I2 = 0%), overall complications (OR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.46-0.71, P < .001; I2 = 0%), acromial stress fracture (OR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.08- 0.59, P = .003; I2 = 0%), infection (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.26- 0.73, P = .002; I2 = 37%), and instability (OR = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.40- 0.90, P = .01; I2 = 0%). In addition, GHOA patients had a better improvement in both American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (mean difference = 7.17; 95% CI: 2.13- 12.21, P = .005; I2 = 81%) without exceeding the minimal clinically important difference, and external rotation (mean difference = 12.00°; 95% CI: 9.63- 14.37, P < .001; I2 = 38%). CONCLUSION: Rotator cuff-deficient patients undergoing rTSA have a higher risk of postoperative complications compared to patients undergoing rTSA for GHOA with an intact cuff. They also showed less improvement in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores and external rotation. However, the clinical significance of these differences should be interpreted with caution, as not all improvements exceeded established thresholds for clinical importance.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Musculoskeletal Outcomes: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are increasingly used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity, but their effects on musculoskeletal health remain completely misunderstood. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review/meta-analysis aims to synthesise clinical data on the effects of GLP-1 RAs on key relevant bone, muscle, and joint outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (both via Ovid® platform) and Embase were searched from inception to March 2025 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or real-world evidence (RWE) studies to be included. This bibliographic search was completed manually. A random-effect model meta-analysis was performed for any outcome reported in at least 2 studies. Subgroup analyses were performed on the type of GLP-1 RAs, type of comparator used and study design. Sensitivity analyses (i.e., leave-out sensitivity analyses and analyses restricted to the most adjusted effect estimate) were performed to test the robustness of the data. The strength of evidence was assessed using GRADE. This work has been performed in adherence with PRISMA statement. (PROSPERO Record ID: CRD420251024082). RESULTS: From 1148 potentially relevant references, 60 articles (46 RCTs, 13 RWE studies and 1 pharmacovigilance study, comprising 1,250,717 individuals) met our inclusion criteria. Different GLP-1 RAs were represented across the panel of studies, i.e., semaglutide, liraglutide, exenatide, dulaglutide, tirzepatide (dual agonist gastric inhibitory polypeptide [GIP]/GLP-1) and others. No effect on bone outcomes (i.e., bone mineral density [all sites] and fractures [all sites]) were observed when the meta-analytical models included the most adjusted effect size. Regarding muscle outcomes, a significant decrease of lean body mass/fat-free mass was consistently observed with GLP-1 RAs in the global model (k = 28, standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.8; -0.23, I2 88%, p-value for heterogeneity <0.0001), which remained robust in all sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses showed that the effect was mainly driven by liraglutide and semaglutide, with a decrease in lean body mass/fat-free mass observed when GLP-1 RAs were compared with placebo. No publication bias was found. Regarding joint outcome, models revealed no significant change in The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain, physical function and stiffness. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis is the first to investigate the effects of GLP-1 RAs on a large panel of musculoskeletal health outcomes. While no significant effects were observed on bone- or joint-related outcomes, GLP-1 RAs were associated with reductions in lean body mass/fat-free mass, although the certainty of evidence was low and these changes appeared largely related to weight loss. Whether these changes translate into clinically meaningful impairments in muscle function or physical performance remains uncertain. Further studies in this field, including those looking at muscle function, strength or performance and using multivariate models considering confounding are needed to better reinforce the models and final findings.

Journal Article↗

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↗