SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted”

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.

118 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Orbital involvement in sickle cell disease: A systematic review.

Orbital involvement in sickle cell disease (SCD) is rare but potentially vision-threatening and is often misdiagnosed due to overlap with infectious orbital disease. We conducted a systematic review of case reports and series describing orbital complications in patients with confirmed SCD, following PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Across 53 studies, 76 cases were identified. Patients were predominantly male (77.6%), with an average age of 13.2 years. Orbital disease was the initial SCD manifestation in 6.6%. Presentations included periorbital edema in all, proptosis in 64.1%, restricted ocular motility in 56.5%, reduced visual acuity in 28.1%, and bilateral involvement in 38.2%. Laboratory findings commonly included leukocytosis (73%) and raised inflammatory markers (86.7%). Radiologically, orbital subperiosteal hematoma were observed in 70%, combined orbital bone infarction and hematoma in 38.2%, and orbital bone infarction alone in 19.7%. Magnetic resonance imaging is critical for accurate diagnosis. Intracranial hemorrhage was present in 9.2%. Less frequent manifestations included orbital apex syndrome, lacrimal gland disease, and nonspecific soft tissue swelling. Management was primarily conservative (82.9%), and surgery was reserved for vision-threatening or intracranial complications. Complete recovery was achieved in 93.1% of cases. While severe vision-threatening complications are uncommon, early recognition remains critical to optimising outcomes in sickle cell orbitopathy.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of the predictive performance of systemic immune-inflammation index and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for three-month poor functional outcome in ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Ischemic stroke (IS) is a leading cause of global mortality and disability. Early and accurate prognosis is crucial for patient management. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) are emerging inflammatory biomarkers; however, their relative predictive value for three-month poor functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] > 2) remains uncertain. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to 20 July 2025, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Observational studies reporting the association of SII or NLR with three-month poor outcome were included. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Area under the curve (AUC), odds ratios (OR), and standardized mean differences (SMD) were pooled using random-effects models in Stata 16.0. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies involving 7520 IS patients were analysed. NLR demonstrated marginally superior discriminative ability compared to SII (AUC 0.71, 95% CI: 0.67-0.76 vs. 0.68, 95% CI: 0.64-0.71), though this difference was not statistically significant. Elevated NLR was significantly associated with poor outcome (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.17-1.37, p < .001), whereas SII was not (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 1.00-1.00, p = .384). Both markers showed moderate effect sizes (SMD: NLR = 0.69, SII = 0.72; p < .001). NLR performed better in non-intervention and Chinese subgroups, while SII exhibited consistent AUC values across treatment and ethnic subgroups. CONCLUSION: NLR and SII are accessible prognostic markers in IS. NLR demonstrates superior accuracy and a significant association with poor outcome, while SII shows greater stability across patient subgroups. Both may assist in risk stratification, in resource-limited settings.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Unravelling bioanalytical innovations, degradation processes, and impurity landscapes of VEGFR inhibitors.

From pre-formulation studies to clinical trials, VEGFR-targeted small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) require rigorous analytical standards. Bioanalysis, stability-indicating studies, and impurity profiling are used to examine chromatographic advances for VEGFR-targeted TKIs like sunitinib, pazopanib, axitinib, sorafenib, cabozantinib, vandetanib, apatinib, lenvatinib, nintedanib, and regorafenib. An LC-MS/MS and UPLC-MS/MS routinely show sub ng/mL performance, as shown by LLOQs (0.2 ng/mL) for sunitinib and axitinib, 1 ng/mL for pazopanib, 5-7 ng/mL for sorafenib, 0.5-1.5 ng/mL for regorafenib metabolic products, and 0.1-0.5 ng/mL for lenvatinib. These approaches are used for pharmacokinetics and therapeutic drug monitoring due to their good correlation coefficient of 0.1-10,000 ng/mL, accuracy of 95%-108%, and precision of 15% RSD. UPLC-QTOF-MS/MS distinguishes degradants and metabolites during forced degradation studies, enabling structural elucidation following ICH M7 risk evaluation protocol. HPTLC/MLC offers fast, sensitive screenings, while RP-HPLC/DAD or HPLC-UV offer reliable, cost-effective routine quality-control solutions with LOD/LOQ in the μg/mL range and linearity of 10-240 μg/mL. This review lists the structures and CAS numbers of ten VEGFR-2 TKI degradants and metabolites, as well as pharmacopeial impurities in SMILES forms. It will be useful for future method development and regulatory applications. To ensure VEGFR-targeted TKI quality, safety, and therapeutic efficacy, LC-MS/MS for trace quantification and HRMS for structure elucidation provide a robust, future-oriented framework. To improve VEGFR-targeted TKI quality, safety, and regulatory compliance, analytical development should focus on HRMS-based impurity characterization, AI-assisted degradation prediction, green chromatography, and harmonized bioanalytical validation.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Exploring the experiences, views, and needs of family members of emergency response workers: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.

Background: Emergency responders, including firefighters, police officers, and paramedics, face workplace challenges that may harm their well-being. They typically rely on family members for support, which may have damaging effects on the family system. While the experiences of emergency responders are well established, their families' subsequent struggles are less well explored.Objective: This review explores the experiences, views, and needs of family members, through determining the mental health and well-being issues that they face, and establishing ways in which family members could be supported.Method: We searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, and ProQuest) for qualitative papers exploring experiences of family members of emergency responders. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria, and data were meta-synthesized using thematic analysis.Results: Six themes and two subthemes were identified from the meta-synthesis. 'Experiences of emotional strain' reflected worry over safety and coping with volatile moods. 'Increased responsibilities' involved safeguarding emergency responders' well-being and managing household duties, at the expense of family members' own needs. Families felt 'devoted yet invisible', with sacrifices overlooked by both emergency responders and society. 'Impacts on the family dynamic' included relational detachment and frustration. 'Support for emergency responder families' from fellow emergency responder families was valued, but organizational support was limited. 'Media portrayal and societal perceptions' varied, as police families faced hostility, while firefighter and paramedic families garnered respect, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.Conclusions: This review highlights that family members play a central role in maintaining the well-being of emergency responders, yet simultaneously face hardships associated with their family member's work and feel undervalued despite their support. This lack of recognition extends to limited professional support. There is a critical need for targeted mental health interventions to support family members, alongside family support measures from emergency responder organizations to assist with the practical difficulties faced by families.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of clinical outcomes of robotic versus open pyeloplasty in infants under 6 months.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic pyeloplasties have become the popular approach for surgical repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in the pediatric population. In infants less than 6 months old, there is concern for lack of intra-abdominal working space and lack of benefit compared to an open approach. Our aim was to compare the peri-operative and post-operative outcomes of patients undergoing open versus robotic pyeloplasty under six months of age. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients less than six months of age undergoing robotic or open pyeloplasty between 2020 and 2024 at a single institution. Patient demographics and clinical outcomes were collected and compared. Surgical success was defined as a >50% reduction in the antero-pelvic diameter (APD) of the affected kidney at one year post pyeloplasty. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients were identified (16 robotic and 16 open), median age at surgery was 4 months old. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay or narcotic usage between the two groups. The robotic cohort had a significantly longer operative time (209.5 min vs 142.5 min, p < 0.001) compared to the open cohort. There was no significant difference between post-operative complication or surgical success rates between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In this small series, robotic and open pyeloplasty both remain viable options for infants less than 6 months of age with equivalent surgical outcomes and lengths of hospital stay.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Non-parametric differential methylation analysis characterizes histotype-specific promoter regions in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is a heterogenous disease with frequent late-stage diagnosis and high mortality rates, for which no reliable screening tests exist. In recent years, epigenetic biomarkers in the form of DNA methylation in CpG-rich regions have gained increased attention in the scientific community due to their robust nature and accessibility, allowing for diagnosis without the need for invasive surgery. In this study, we investigated the aberrant methylation of promoter regions in early stage EOC through non-parametric methods, with the purpose of characterizing candidate epigenetic biomarkers. The approach was used on a cohort of early stage EOC samples, and results were compared to existing programs for differential methylation. Significant regions were then used to construct a CpG panel for stratifying EOC histotypes through predictive classification in external data. Identified promoter regions were highly reproducible across cohorts, and the constructed CpG model stratified histotypes in external cohorts through predictive classification. Comparisons against other DMP and DMR callers showed a degree of homogeneity between results but also revealed promoter regions that were overlooked despite clear signs of aberrant methylation. Finally, EOC histotypes were found to differ in their methylation distribution types, and results indicate that methods sensitive to non-normally distributed data may be poorly suited to compare groups with different distribution types. The non-parametric approach identified aberrantly methylated promoter regions that were highly reproducible across cohorts. Results from predictive classification indicate that these regions may be useful for the purpose of EOC histotype stratification.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of Ketamine and Pregabalin on Postoperative Opioid Usage and Pain Management in Spinal Fusion: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal fusion is associated with substantial early postoperative pain and opioid exposure. Both ketamine and pregabalin are widely incorporated into Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols as opioid-sparing adjuncts. However, their comparative efficacy and safety in this specific setting remain uncertain. Our objective was to compare ketamine and pregabalin indirectly for early postoperative opioid consumption, pain, and adverse events in adults undergoing spinal fusion. METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Trials were searched from inception through October 2025. Eligible studies were randomized trials enrolling adults undergoing instrumented spinal fusion, randomized to perioperative ketamine, pregabalin, or control, and reported extractable 24-hour opioid consumption or pain outcomes. Continuous outcomes were pooled as mean differences in MME or VAS units, and adverse events were reported descriptively. A connected treatment network was analyzed using random-effects models. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (n=879) were included: ketamine (n=210), pregabalin (n=271), and control (n=398). Six trials contributed opioid data (3 ketamine, 3 pregabalin). Using pregabalin 150 mg as reference, ketamine was associated with lower 0-24-hour opioid use (MD -56.99 mg MME; 95% CI -99.56 to -14.43). Control (MD +21.31; 95% CI -1.05 to +43.66) and pregabalin 300 mg (MD -13.22; 95% CI -40.41 to +13.96) did not significantly differ from pregabalin 150 mg. Seven trials contributed 24-hour VAS data, with control being associated with higher pain versus pregabalin 150 mg (MD +0.84; 95% CI +0.01 to +1.66), while ketamine and pregabalin 300 mg were not k significantly different. Adverse events were generally infrequent and similar to control. CONCLUSIONS: Both ketamine and pregabalin provide early opioid sparing with comparable 24-hour analgesia. Ketamine showed a larger opioid-sparing point estimate, but indirect comparisons are imprecise. Adequately powered head-to-head trials with standardized protocols and adverse event reporting are needed.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effects of low-dose esketamine on early quality of recovery following minimally invasive esophagectomy: a multicenter, randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) frequently experience moderate-to-severe postoperative pain and anxiety-depressive symptoms, compromising postoperative quality of recovery (QoR). Esketamine is a promising adjunct for analgesia and anxiolysis; however, the effect of low-dose esketamine on patient-centered recovery outcomes in MIE remains unclear. METHODS: In this double-blinded, multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for elective McKeown esophagectomy were allocated to esketamine (0.25 mg/kg loading dose and 0.125 mg/kg/h continuous infusion during surgery) or placebo (equivalent volume and rate of saline). The primary outcome was the QoR-15 score on postoperative day (POD) 2. Secondary outcomes included QoR-15 scores on POD 1, 3, 7 and 30. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Anxiety Subscale (HADS-A) and Depression Subscale (HADS-D) scores, numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores, and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) scores on POD 1 to 3, and safety evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients were analyzed (esketamine, n = 98; placebo, n = 100). Intraoperative esketamine significantly improved QoR-15 scores on POD 2 (116.9 ± 9.4 vs. 110.2 ± 9.8, p < 0.001) and POD 3 (123.6 ± 7.2 vs. 116.8 ± 8.4, p < 0.001) compared with placebo. HADS-A and HADS-D scores were lower in the esketamine group on POD 1 to 3 (all p < 0.001). Additionally, esketamine recipients reported significantly lower NRS scores at rest and during movement and BPI scores for pain severity and pain interference items (all p < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative low-dose esketamine improved early, patient-reported recovery after MIE by enhancing analgesia and reducing postoperative anxiety and depression without increasing adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Register (identifier: ChiCTR2400088916).

Humans↗

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

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↗