SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “risk reducing surgery”

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.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

International trends in concurrent hysterectomy at risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers are advised to undergo a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy between the ages of 35 and 45 due to their increased risk of tubo-ovarian cancer. A concurrent hysterectomy may be performed at the time of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Currently, the international execution of hysterectomy during risk-reducing surgery and the factors guiding related decision-making are unknown. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the international execution of concurrent hysterectomy during risk-reducing surgery for tubo-ovarian cancer and factors guiding providers' decision-making about this. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a mixed-methods study. First, we executed a quantitative analysis with data from the Women choosIng Surgical Prevention (WISP) and TUBectomy with delayed oophorectomy as Alternative for risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in high-risk Women to assess the Safety of Prevention (TUBA-WISP II) study, both prospective preferential trials assessing surgical strategies for tubo-ovarian cancer prevention. Data were collected via electronic case report forms. Concurrent hysterectomy during risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was compared between Europe, North- and South America, and Australia using Kruskal-Wallis tests. We used univariable logistic regression models to estimate the association of personal and prevention-related characteristics with the execution of hysterectomy at risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women from North- and South America. Subsequently, we conducted focus group interviews with gynecologic providers from 12 countries who provide preventive care for individuals at increased risk of tubo-ovarian cancer to identify indications, barriers, and facilitators for the execution of hysterectomy with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. RESULTS: In the quantitative analysis, we included 2181 participants, of whom 1647 (75.5%) were from Europe, 498 (22.8%) from North- and South America, and 36 (1.7%) from Australia. Execution of hysterectomy at risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy differed substantially between continents, with an execution of 48.8% in North- and South America, 14.2% in Australia, and 2.8% in Europe (P<.001). Execution of concurrent hysterectomy at risk-reducing salpingectomy in women from North- and South America occurred more often in women with a BRCA1 pathogenic variant compared to a BRCA2 pathogenic variant (adjusted odds ratio 0.4 [95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.7]). In the qualitative analysis, we interviewed 23 healthcare providers and identified 31 barriers and 32 facilitators regarding hysterectomy execution during risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. A total of 8 different indications were mentioned, but opinions varied on the validity and weight given to each indication. Providers indicated that important barriers or facilitators for concurrent hysterectomy included a lack of clear guidelines, cultural variation between countries, (lack of) consensus within departments, and different interpretation of the endometrial cancer risk. CONCLUSION: Internationally, there is a large variation in execution of hysterectomy during risk-reducing surgery with frequent utilization in North- and South America, and rare utilization in Europe. This could be explained by the interpretation of indications for hysterectomy by providers, which might be explained by cultural variation, the absence of clear guidelines, and limited scientific evidence.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology Analysis in Cost-Effectiveness of Population-Based BRCA Testing for Ovarian Cancer in the Public Health System.

Although ovarian cancer is the most lethal among gynecological cancers, access to massive BRCA testing is still limited. Its cost-effectiveness is still a topic of discussion in several countries. In Brazil, olaparib was recently incorporated into the public health system, access to BRCA testing is still limited. In this article, we aim to review the cost-effectiveness of offering BRCA testing to the at-risk population. A working group composed of 14 specialists in surgical oncology and cancer genetics was established to discuss the cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA testing for ovarian cancer. The project was divided into five main areas, each with subtopics assigned among the 14 participants. They were: the existing clinical testing guidelines, the current healthcare infrastructure in the Brazilian public health system, cost-effectiveness analysis, challenges in implementing prophylactic surgeries, and family counseling and risk communication. A comprehensive literature review was conducted, followed by a series of meetings among the article's contributors to reach consensus on unresolved issues. These discussions aimed to build recommendations based on the best available scientific evidence. Using as a basis the current structure already existing within the Brazilian public health service (SUS [Sistema Único de Saude]), and based on the testing of the at-risk population chosen by our experts, we estimated savings. The net savings for a population of 100 000 women would range from BRL 7030.30 (US$1255.41) to BRL 1853.92 (US$331.05). And these costs could have an even greater impact when public service PARP inhibitors are incorporated. The working group of the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology understands that large-scale BRCA testing is cost-effective, especially when risk-reducing surgery is implemented. Other measures are important, such as training teams of non-specialists to recognize the population at risk, in addition to creating an entire line of care for patients with ovarian cancer in the SUS.

Humans↗

PubMed2025

The risk of a second primary cancer in PTEN Hamartoma Tumor Syndrome (PHTS).

PURPOSE: Patients with PTEN Hamartoma Tumor Syndrome (PHTS) have high hereditary cancer risks for breast, endometrial, and thyroid cancer. Patients develop multiple primary cancers, but these risks remain uncertain. We aimed to provide the second primary cancer risk. METHODS: This European cohort study assessed second primary cancer risks with Kaplan-Meier analyses using data from medical files, registries and/or patient questionnaires. RESULTS: Overall, 279 adult PHTS patients with (a history of) cancer were included (80% female). Among females, 106 (54%) developed a PHTS-related second primary cancer after a PHTS-related first primary cancer, whereas 10 (29%) males developed a PHTS-related second primary cancer after a PHTS-related first primary cancer. The 5- and 10-year PHTS-related second primary cancer risks were 24.5% (95% CI = 18.1-32.5) and 45.7% (95% CI = 36.9-55.4) in females and 14.5% (95% CI = 5.7-34.1) and 19.8% (95% CI = 8.6-41.9) in males, respectively. Furthermore, 5- and 10-year risks for a second primary breast cancer after a first primary breast cancer were 23.3% (95% CI = 14.9-35.2) and 45.6% (95% CI = 33.0-60.2) in females, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that PHTS patients have high second primary cancer risks, which is driven by breast cancer in females. Hence, identifying patients with PHTS before or at first primary cancer diagnosis is essential to enable potential early detection or prevention of a second primary cancer through surveillance or risk-reducing surgery.

Humans↗

PubMed2018

Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

BACKGROUND: The presence of deleterious mutations in breast cancer 1 gene (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2 gene (BRCA2) significantly increases the risk of developing some cancers, such as breast and high-grade serous cancer (HGSC) of ovarian, tubal and peritoneal origin. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is usually recommended to BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers after completion of childbearing. Despite prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the role of RRSO in reducing the mortality and incidence of breast, HGSC and other cancers, RRSO is still an area of debate and it is unclear whether RRSO differs in effectiveness by type of mutation carried. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of RRSO in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 7) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and trial registries, with no language restrictions up to July 2017. We handsearched abstracts of scientific meetings and other relevant publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included non-randomised trials (NRS), prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case series that used statistical adjustment for baseline case mix using multivariable analyses comparing RRSO versus no RRSO in women without a previous or coexisting breast, ovarian or fallopian tube malignancy, in women with or without hysterectomy, and in women with a risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) before, with or after RRSO. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data and performed meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HR) for time-to-event variables and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). To assess bias in the studies, we used the ROBINS-I 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. We quantified inconsistency between studies by estimating the I2 statistic. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled effect estimates. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 cohort studies, comprising 8087 participants (2936 (36%) surgical participants and 5151 (64%) control participants who were BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. All the studies compared RRSO with or without RRM versus no RRSO (surveillance). The certainty of evidence by GRADE assessment was very low due to serious risk of bias. Nine studies, including 7927 women, were included in the meta-analyses. The median follow-up period ranged from 0.5 to 27.4 years. MAIN OUTCOMES: overall survival was longer with RRSO compared with no RRSO (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.54; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2548 women; very low-certainty evidence). HGSC cancer mortality (HR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17; I² = 69%; P < 0.0001; 3 studies, 2534 women; very low-certainty evidence) and breast cancer mortality (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.88; I² = 65%; P = 0.009; 7 studies, 7198 women; very low-certainty evidence) were lower with RRSO compared with no RRSO. None of the studies reported bone fracture incidence. There was a difference in favour of RRSO compared with no RRSO in terms of ovarian cancer risk perception quality of life (MD 15.40, 95% CI 8.76 to 22.04; P < 0.00001; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported adverse events.Subgroup analyses for main outcomes: meta-analysis showed an increase in overall survival among women who had RRSO versus women without RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52; P < 0001; I² = 23%; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; P = 0.01; I² = 0%; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analysis showed a decrease in HGSC cancer mortality among women with RRSO versus no RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.41; I² = 54%; P = 0.001; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), but uncertain for BRCA2 mutation carriers due to low frequency of HGSC cancer deaths in BRCA2 mutation carriers. There was a decrease in breast cancer mortality among women with RRSO versus no RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.67; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), but not for BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.87; I² = 63%; P = 0.75; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). One study showed a difference in favour of RRSO versus no RRSO in improving quality of life for ovarian cancer risk perception in women who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (MD 10.70, 95% CI 2.45 to 18.95; P = 0.01; 98 women; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (MD 13.00, 95% CI 3.59 to 22.41; P = 0.007; very low-certainty evidence). Data from one study showed a difference in favour of RRSO and RRM versus no RRSO in increasing overall survival (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; P = 0.0001; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence), but no difference for breast cancer mortality (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.19; P = 0.25; very low-certainty evidence). The risk estimates for breast cancer mortality according to age at RRSO (50 years of age or less versus more than 50 years) was not protective and did not differ for BRCA1 (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.11; I² = 16%; P = 0.23; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 carriers (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.87; I² = 63%; P = 0.75; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-certainty evidence that RRSO may increase overall survival and lower HGSC and breast cancer mortality for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that RRSO reduces the risk of death from HGSC and breast cancer in women with BRCA1 mutations. Evidence for the effect of RRSO on HGSC and breast cancer in BRCA2 carriers was very uncertain due to low numbers. These results should be interpreted with caution due to questionable study designs, risk of bias profiles, and very low-certainty evidence. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding bone fracture incidence, quality of life, or severe adverse events for RRSO, or for effects of RRSO based on type and age at risk-reducing surgery. Further research on these outcomes is warranted to explore differential effects for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Laparoscopic Surgery Is Associated With Reduced Small Bowel Obstruction Risk After Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Nationwide Cohort Study of 5458 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative small bowel obstruction (SBO) is a major complication following colorectal cancer surgery, yet evidence-based prevention strategies remain unclear. We aimed to clarify site-specific risk factors for SBO and evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and adhesion prevention materials (APMs) in preventing SBO after colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 5458 patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery at 32 Japanese institutions between 2012 and 2014. The primary endpoint was the 5-year risk of SBO. We evaluated the effects of laparoscopic surgery, APM use, and stoma creation on SBO risk. Clinical variables included demographics, tumor site, operative approach, operative details, and postoperative complications. Hospital-level clustering was addressed using mixed-effects logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall SBO incidence was 5.2% (n = 283). Rectal cancer had the highest risk, whereas all colonic sites except the descending colon showed significantly lower odds. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a 42% reduction in odds (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.45-0.74; p < 0.001), with significant reductions in ascending (NNT = 22.2, p = 0.001) and sigmoid colon surgery (NNT = 30.2, p = 0.003). APMs showed no protective effect (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.78-1.32; p = 0.94). Stoma creation significantly increased SBO risk (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.35-2.51; p < 0.001). Secondary analysis identified reoperation and postoperative ileus as additional independent risk factors. DISCUSSION: Laparoscopic surgery was associated with reduced long-term SBO risk, with significant benefits in ascending and sigmoid colon surgery. APMs showed no measurable benefit. Stoma creation increased SBO risk, with no observed difference between ileostomy and colostomy.

adhesion prevention material↗

PubMed2026

A two-center randomized clinical superiority trial of single-anastomosis sleeve ileal bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy for severe obesity: SASSY study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Single-anastomosis sleeve ileal bypass is a novel metabolic bariatric surgery intended to enhance metabolic outcomes and reduce the risk of postoperative complications. Although preliminary outcome data for single-anastomosis sleeve ileal bypass are promising, evidence from adequately powered, randomized head-to-head comparisons is scarce. This trial compares the efficacy and safety of single-anastomosis sleeve ileal bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy in patients with class II obesity (body mass index = 35.0-39.9 kg/m²) with at least one obesity‑related comorbidity or class III obesity (body mass index ⩾40.0 kg/m²). METHODS: This two-center randomized clinical superiority trial enrolls patients eligible for metabolic bariatric surgery at two specialized Norwegian centers. Included patients are randomly assigned (1:1) to either single-anastomosis sleeve ileal bypass or sleeve gastrectomy with standardized perioperative treatment and care. The primary endpoint is the between-group difference in change in body mass index from baseline to 2 years after single-anastomosis sleeve ileal bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy. Secondary endpoints include additional weight loss outcomes, the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease, surgical and postoperative complications, obesity-related comorbidities, nutritional status, bone mineral density, gastrointestinal symptoms, quality of life, and rates of revisional and conversion surgery. All endpoints will be evaluated at 2 and 5 years after surgery. Statistical analyses utilize linear mixed models and analysis of covariance within an intention-to-treat framework. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide high-level evidence with robust and comparative outcome data on single-anastomosis sleeve ileal bypass and sleeve gastrectomy, aiming to clarify the clinical utility of single-anastomosis sleeve ileal bypass and inform surgical practice. Findings will address gaps in medium- and long-term evidence regarding weight loss, safety, comorbidity resolution, and quality of life following single-anastomosis sleeve ileal bypass.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Mammotome Minimally Invasive Surgery and Traditional Open Surgery in the Therapy of Benign Breast Tumors.

ObjectiveTo systematically analyze the efficacy of ultrasound-guided mammotome minimally invasive surgery and traditional open surgery in the therapy of benign breast tumors.MethodsA computerized search retrieved original literature on the therapeutic effects of ultrasound-guided mammotome minimally invasive surgery and traditional open surgery for benign breast tumors from authoritative databases, including CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The search covered from database inception to January 2024, using a strategy of subject terms combined with free terms. The retrieved literature was screened, data were extracted, and quality was evaluated. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.ResultsA total of 8 literatures were included in the study, and a total of 1909 patients with benign breast tumors were found from 2018 to 2023. The results of meta-analysis showed that the operation time [MD = -12.79, 95%CI (-14.04, -11.55), P < 0.00001], intraoperative blood loss [MD = -11.55, 95%CI (-14.74, -8.36), P < 0.00001], healing time [MD = -2.73, 95%CI (-4.03, -1.43), P < 0.00001] and complication rate [MD = 0.17, 95%CI (0.12, 0.26), P < 0.00001] was apparently different from traditional open surgery (P < 0.05).ConclusionUltrasound-guided mammotome minimally invasive surgery can effectively shorten the operation time of patients with benign breast tumors, reduce intraoperative blood loss, promote healing, and reduce the risk of complications. The effect is better than that of traditional open surgery.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy is widely provided to control menopausal symptoms and has been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of prolonged use (at least one year) of hormone therapy on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures and cognition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 26 September 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials in which peri- or postmenopausal women took hormone therapy or placebo for at least one year. We included various oestrogen formulations, with or without progestogens. We focused on studies assessing hormone therapy's effects on long-term clinical outcomes, including death, coronary events and cancer. Hormone therapy's efficacy in managing menopausal symptoms was beyond the scope of this review, and is assessed in other Cochrane reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies - with two newly added in this update - involving 45,660 participants. We derived nearly 70% of the data from two well-conducted studies: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS 1998) and the large, multi-component Women's Health Initiative research programme, which included two hormone therapy arms (WHI 1998). Across all the studies, most participants were postmenopausal American women with one or more comorbidities. The mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. Only one included study focused on perimenopausal women. We present full results for all included studies with available data in the main review. The results presented below are drawn from WHI 1998, in which the combined hormone therapy arm and the oestrogen-only arm were run concurrently, with women assigned to the appropriate trial based on their uterus status. One study with 16,608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus compared combined continuous hormone therapy (conjugated equine oestrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate) to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of 5.6 years of follow-up. Based on this study, combined continuous hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of a coronary event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the risk of stroke (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.55 to 6.64; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, combined continuous hormone therapy probably increases the risk of breast cancer (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.06; 14,203 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.86; moderate-certainty evidence). One study including 10,739 postmenopausal women who had undergone a hysterectomy compared oestrogen-only (conjugated equine oestrogen) hormone therapy to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of seven years' follow-up. Based on this study, oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of coronary events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), venous thromboembolism (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.74) and breast cancer (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01), all with moderate-certainty evidence. It may make little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably increases the risk of stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67) and gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.24), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80), all with moderate-certainty evidence. We judged most included studies to have a low risk of bias for most domains. The overall certainty of evidence for the main comparisons was moderate. The main limitation was that only about 30% of women were 50 to 59 years old at baseline, the age group most likely to consider hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of women using hormone therapy suggests that the risk profiles vary between combined hormone therapy and oestrogen-only therapy. Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to coronary events, and probably increases the risk of stroke and gallbladder disease. It probably makes little to no difference in the risk of breast cancer, and probably reduces the risk of all fractures. Combined hormone therapy may increase the risk of thromboembolism and probably increases the risk of breast cancer. These results should be interpreted with caution as they are based on one study using oral hormone therapy, which may not represent the risks of the hormone therapy currently used in clinical practice.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Prophylactic Surgical Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: Short-Term Outcomes of Randomized Controlled LAA-CLOSURE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) reduces stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing cardiac surgery. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of prophylactic LAA closure during bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement in patients without prior AF. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, academic, randomized, open-label, multicenter LAA-CLOSURE (Left Atrial Appendage CLOSURE for the Prevention of Thromboembolisms in Patients Undergoing Aortic Bioprosthesis Surgery) trial, 921 patients without prior AF undergoing bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement with or without concomitant surgery were randomized and 904 patients included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (prophylactic LAA closure, n=445; or usual care, n=459). Median age was 73 years (interquartile range, 69-76), 34.8% were women, and 49% had concomitant coronary artery disease. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism at 30 days. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 10 of 434 (2.2%) patients in the LAA closure group and 14 of 452 (3.1%) patients in the control group; however, the treatment effect changed direction at ≈7 days. In the time-split Cox regression model, hazard ratios were 2.4 (95% CI, 0.62-9.4; P=0.20) between 0 and 7 days and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.080-1.0; P=0.056) between 7 and 30 days. No closure-related serious complications or differences in bleeding were observed. Postoperative AF occurred in 205 of 445 (46.1%) versus 184 of 459 (40.1%) patients (relative risk, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.99-1.3]; P=0.07), and AF at discharge in 40 of 445 (9.2%) versus 34 of 459 (7.7%) patients (relative risk, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.77-1.8]; P=0.44), in the closure and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic LAA closure during bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement was safe and did not increase bleeding. REGISTRATION: URL: clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT02321137.

Aged↗

PubMed2026

Minimally invasive versus open abdominoperineal resection and the risk of postoperative perineal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of minimally invasive surgery on the risk of postoperative perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection (APR) or extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) remains uncertain. This study compares perineal hernia rates and perioperative outcomes between minimally invasive and open approaches. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched through June 2026. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. A Bayesian meta-analysis was additionally performed for the primary outcome. RESULTS: Four comparative observational studies involving 763 patients were included; 249 underwent minimally invasive APR/ELAPE, and 514 underwent open APR/ELAPE. Postoperative perineal hernia was significantly more frequent following minimally invasive surgery (OR 4.13; 95% CI 2.24-7.61; p < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the minimally invasive group (MD - 156.5 mL; 95% CI - 298.4 to - 14.5; p = 0.03), as was operative time (MD - 41.7 min; 95% CI - 60.8 to - 22.5; p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed in hospital stay (MD - 2.5 days; 95% CI - 5.4 to 0.4; p = 0.09) or 30-day readmission rates (OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.82-2.42; p = 0.209). Bayesian analysis yielded a posterior mean OR of 4.04 (95% CrI 1.96-8.36), corresponding to a 99.9% posterior probability that minimally invasive surgery increases the risk of postoperative perineal hernia. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive APR/ELAPE was associated with an increased risk of postoperative perineal hernia compared with the open approach. Strategies to reduce this complication while preserving the benefits of minimally invasive surgery warrant further investigation.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

SBUF-SMUF: On the path to the optimum hemofiltration technique in pediatric cardiopulmonary bypass: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Hemofiltration during pediatric cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is essential to mitigate hemodilution, inflammatory responses, and postoperative complications. Conventional ultrafiltration (CUF) is widely practiced, but novel methods such as subzero balanced ultrafiltration combined with simple modified ultrafiltration (SBUF-SMUF) may offer superior outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of CUF versus SBUF-SMUF in pediatric patients undergoing open-heart surgery. METHODS: In this prospective randomized, outcome-assessor-blinded clinical trial, 80 pediatric patients with congenital heart disease were allocated to either CUF (n = 40) or SBUF-SMUF (n = 40) during CPB. Baseline demographics, intraoperative characteristics, fluid balance, blood product utilization, and postoperative outcomes were assessed. Statistical analysis was conducted using independent t-tests, Chi-square tests, and Fisher's exact tests. Statistical significance was defined as a two-tailed p-Value of less than 0.05. RESULTS: Demographic and preoperative variables were comparable between groups. Mean fluid balance was significantly positive in the CUF group (+192.1 ± 178.8 mL) but negative in the SBUF-SMUF group (-105.0 ± 78.9 mL, p < 0.001). The SBUF-SMUF group required significantly less intraoperative PRBC (141.7 ± 70.2 vs. 261.0 ± 68.8 mL, p < 0.001) and postoperative FFP transfusion (2% vs. 10%, p = 0.020). Post-bypass hematocrit levels were higher (31.2% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.001) and extubation occurred earlier in the SBUF-SMUF group (1.05 ± 1.03 vs. 2.27 ± 2.37 days, p = 0.006). No significant differences were observed in potassium levels or incidence of acute kidney injury. CONCLUSION: The SBUF-SMUF technique is safe, effective, and superior to CUF in optimizing fluid balance, reducing blood product utilization, and facilitating earlier extubation in pediatric cardiac surgery. No additional risk of oliguria or electrolyte imbalance was observed compared to CUF. Its simplicity and reproducibility support its consideration as a standard approach in pediatric CPB.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Nociception-guided opioid administration within multimodal analgesia for laparoscopic endometriosis surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

Women with endometriosis are at increased risk of severe postoperative pain due to nociceptive sensitization. While multimodal analgesia reduces opioid use, the added value of objective nociception monitoring remains unclear. This study evaluated whether NOL®-guided opioid titration improves perioperative outcomes within a standardized multimodal regimen. In this prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial, premenopausal women undergoing laparoscopic surgery for suspected endometriosis or adenomyosis were assigned to NOL®-guided analgesia or standard care based on clinical assessment. All patients received a standardized multimodal protocol. The primary outcome was total perioperative opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain scores (NRS) and PACU length of stay. Exploratory analyses assessed the association between preoperative pain (Mankoski Pain Scale, MPS) and postoperative outcomes. A total of 111 patients were analyzed (NOL®: n = 54; control: n = 57). Total perioperative opioid consumption did not differ significantly between groups (adjusted mean difference = 14 μg for Fentanyl and 52 μg for Remifentanil; p = 0.8). Surgery duration was an independent predictor of opioid use (p < 0.001) and PACU length of stay (p = 0.01), whereas treatment group had no significant effect. Postoperative pain scores were comparable between groups at all time points. NOL®-derived metrics were not associated with opioid consumption or pain. Higher preoperative MPS scores independently predicted higher pain scores in the late PACU phase. NOL®-guided opioid titration did not reduce perioperative opioid consumption or improve early postoperative outcomes compared with standard multimodal analgesia in women undergoing laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis.

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 = 209, ACCF n = 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 < 0.01), though the clinical relevance is uncertain. VBSO was associated with reduced risks of graft subsidence (RR 0.23; p < 0.01), pseudarthrosis (RR 0.25; p < 0.01), revision surgery (RR 0.17; p < 0.01), and neurological deterioration (RR 0.17; p = 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

Early mobilization within 24 to 48 h improves postoperative clinical outcomes in older adults with hip fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is a major public health concern among older adults, often resulting in prolonged disability, institutionalization, and increased healthcare burden. Early mobilization has been widely recommended to enhance postoperative recovery; however, there is a lack of consolidated evidence quantifying its impact on clinical and functional outcomes. This study aimed to synthesize and evaluate the impact of early mobilization following hip fracture surgery in older adults and to explore potential sources of heterogeneity to better inform clinical and nursing practice. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, and Emcare) from inception to June 15, 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies comparing early mobilization (defined as ambulation within 24 to 48 h postoperatively) to delayed or usual mobilization in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. Primary outcomes included mortality, discharge destination, and length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, functional recovery, and readmission. Risk of bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies involving 297,435 patients were included. Compared with delayed mobilization, early mobilization significantly reduced 30-day mortality (relative risk = 0.40, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.64) and 1-year mortality (relative risk = 0.57, 95% confidence interval: 0.40-0.80) (both p < 0.05). In regional analyses of pooled mortality, similar reductions were observed across Asia-Pacific, North America, and Europe. Patients receiving early mobilization were more likely to be discharged home and had shorter hospital stays. Early mobilization also resulted in a reduced risk of postoperative complications (relative risk = 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-0.84, p < 0.05), with specific improvements in pneumonia and thromboembolism rates. Functional independence was significantly improved, as shown by higher Barthel Index scores and increased odds of achieving Functional Independence Measure ≥5 at discharge. No significant difference was observed in readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: lization within 24 to 48 h following hip fracture surgery was associated with favorable outcomes, including reduced mortality, improved functional independence, higher rates of discharge to home, shorter hospital length of stay, and fewer postoperative complications. Although heterogeneity across studies and the predominance of observational evidence warrant cautious interpretation, these findings support current recommendations for early mobilization and highight the potential value of structured and standardized mobilization protocols in routine postoperative hip fracture care.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effect of intraoperative 40-hz gamma-frequency auditory stimulation on postoperative delirium in older adults undergoing major surgery: a randomized clinical trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common and clinically significant complication among older adults undergoing major surgery under general anesthesia. Gamma-frequency (40-Hz) auditory stimulation has demonstrated potential neuroprotective and cognition-enhancing effects, suggesting a plausible role in perioperative delirium prevention. However, direct clinical evidence supporting intraoperative 40-Hz auditory stimulation in reducing POD remains limited, warranting rigorous evaluation in a randomized trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial will enroll 550 older adults scheduled for major noncardiac, nonneurosurgical surgery under general anesthesia. Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the active stimulation group, receiving intraoperative 40-Hz gamma-frequency auditory stimulation delivered via headphones for 2 h following successful anesthesia induction, or the sham stimulation group, wearing headphones without active auditory output. The primary outcome is the incidence of POD on postoperative day 1 though 3, assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) or the CAM for the ICU (CAM-ICU). Secondary outcomes include POD severity, sleep quality, pain scores, analgesic consumption, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), rescue antiemetic use, duration of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, length of hospital stay, quality of postoperative recovery, incidence of perioperative adverse events; postoperative morbidity, health-related quality of life, and all-cause 30-day mortality. DISCUSSION: This trial will determine whether intraoperative 40-Hz gamma-frequency auditory stimulation reduces the incidence of POD among older adults undergoing major surgery under general anesthesia. If efficacious, this noninvasive intervention could constitute a feasible perioperative strategy to mitigate delirium risk and enhance postoperative recovery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2500115156).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Vancomycin Effectiveness in Reducing Surgical Site Infection in Posterior Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Data Analysis of the STRIVE Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To re-evaluate vancomycin as a preventive measure for surgical site infection (SSI). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Intrawound vancomycin powder is used to prevent SSIs in spinal surgery. Prior studies, often limited to single institutions or small samples, have shown mixed efficacy and potential increases in non- S. aureus and Gram-negative infections. We hypothesized that SSIs rates would be similar with and without intrawound vancomycin in posterior spinal fusion (PSF) surgery. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from the 3595 patients in the STaphylococcus aureus suRgical Inpatient Vaccine Efficacy (STRIVE) trial were stratified by intrawound antibiotic usage. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the effect of vancomycin use on SSI, adjusting for patient demographics and SSI-associated risk factors. Secondary outcomes included critical care stay, reoperation, sepsis, and hospital readmission. RESULTS: Of 3311 patients who underwent surgery, 847 (26%) received only intrawound vancomycin and 1534 (46%) received no intrawound antibiotics. Sixty (8%) patients developed postoperative SSI, of whom 20 (33%) had received intrawound vancomycin. Receiving intrawound vancomycin was not associated with SSI incidence versus no intrawound antibiotics [odds ratio (OR): 0.77; 95% CI: 0.42-1.42], critical care stay (OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.78-1.12), or sepsis (OR: 2.04; 95% CI: 0.62-6.73). However, intrawound vancomycin was associated with increased odds of hospital readmission (OR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.28-2.6; P < 0.001) and reoperation (OR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.18-2.6; P = 0.005). Factors significantly associated with intrawound vancomycin use included intraoperative antibiotic readministration (OR: 2.97; 95% CI: 1.36-6.5; P =0.006) and hospital location, lower odds in Europe (OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.06-0.29; P < 0.001) or Asia (OR: 0.02; 95% CI: 0-0.08; P < 0.001) versus North America. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative vancomycin use was not associated with reduced SSI incidence compared with no intrawound antibiotics after PSF surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Higher versus Routine Intraoperative Blood Pressure Targets in Noncardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies consistently link intraoperative hypotension to adverse postoperative outcomes, leading guidelines to recommend maintaining mean arterial pressure 60 to 65 mmHg or greater during noncardiac surgery. Whether targeting higher intraoperative blood pressure values improves clinical outcomes remains uncertain. METHODS: The authors conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-guided search on PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Embase from inception to April 2026. Randomized trials comparing higher intraoperative blood pressure targets, either as fixed absolute thresholds or personalized to preoperative baseline, versus routine blood pressure management in adults undergoing elective noncardiac surgery with general anesthesia were included. Outcomes included in-hospital or 30-day mortality, postoperative delirium, acute kidney injury (AKI), 30-day major cardiovascular events, acute myocardial injury, stroke, length of stay, and intraoperative hypotension. RESULTS: Fifteen trials (15,603 patients) were included. Higher targets did not reduce AKI (risk ratio [RR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.06; P = 0.36; I 2 = 16%) or acute myocardial injury (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.12; P = 0.59; I 2 = 0%) compared with routine targets, with firm evidence from trial sequential analysis. Higher targets were associated with a significant reduction in postoperative delirium (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.98; P = 0.04; I 2 = 26%), although trial sequential analysis indicated the cumulative evidence remained insufficient to draw firm conclusions. No significant effect was observed on in-hospital or 30-day mortality (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.34; P = 1.00; I 2 = 0%); evidence on 30-day major cardiovascular events, stroke, and length of stay was similarly insufficient to draw firm conclusions. CONCLUSION: In adults undergoing elective noncardiac surgery, targeting higher intraoperative blood pressure values does not improve major postoperative outcomes compared with routine management. A potential reduction in postoperative delirium warrants confirmation in adequately powered trials.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Rationale, design, and experiences from the vanguard phase of the bariatric surgery for the reduction of cardiovascular events (BRAVE) trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS) reduces mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with obesity, but adequately powered randomized trials (RCTs) are lacking. The Bariatric Surgery for the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events (BRAVE) trial was designed to address this evidence gap. METHODS: BRAVE is an investigator-initiated, multi-center, open-label RCT with blinded endpoint adjudication comparing MBS vs guideline-based medical weight management (MWM) in adults with obesity and high-risk cardiovascular disease (CVD). Eligible participants have a body-mass index ≥35 kg/m² or ≥30 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes or age >55 years, and prior myocardial infarction (MI), coronary intervention, heart failure (HF), atrial fibrillation (AF) with elevated CHA₂DS₂-VASc score, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral arterial disease. Participants are randomized 1:1 to MBS (sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or duodenal switch) or MWM, which includes dietary, behavioral, and pharmacologic therapies. The primary outcome is the composite of all-cause death, MI, stroke, HF events, coronary revascularization, AF hospitalization, and renal events. A vanguard phase of 200 participants was implemented to optimize recruitment and logistics. RESULTS: As of October 2025, 2,514 individuals have been screened from 17 centers in Canada, Brazil, Italy and Spain, with 444 entered MBS work-up, and 200 have been randomized. The randomized cohort (mean age 59.8 years; 37% female; mean BMI 44.0 kg m⁻²) has high burden of hypertension (82%), diabetes (45%), coronary artery disease (44%), HF (39%), and AF (48%). Recruitment barriers were identified and addressed through targeted education and enhanced patient engagement. CONCLUSIONS: BRAVE is the first large RCT evaluating whether MBS safely reduces major cardiovascular events compared with medical therapy in high-risk patients with obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05531474.

Humans↗