Clinical trials

Why is the study being done? Robotic-assisted surgery offers high precision and ergonomic benefits, but it requires specialized console skills that differ significantly from traditional open or laparoscopic surgery. A fundamental part of operating a robotic surgical system is clutch control, which allows surgeons to reposition their controllers without moving the actual surgical instruments. Inefficient clutching can disrupt workflow, increase mental workload, and lead to operator fatigue. Modern platforms like the Da Vinci Xi offer two main options for clutching: hand-controlled clutching and foot-controlled clutching. Currently, there is limited research isolating how these different clutch options affect performance, especially for novice operators who have no prior robotic experience. This study aims to evaluate and compare hand clutch versus foot clutch methods to determine which approach better supports efficient skill acquisition, precision, and comfort for beginners. What happens during the study? Surgical trainees with no prior robotic surgery experience will be recruited for this study. After completing an initial baseline questionnaire and receiving a standardized orientation on the equipment, all participants will undergo a 20-minute practice session where they get to try both hand and foot clutching mechanisms. One week after the practice session, participants will return for the formal evaluation and be randomly assigned to one of two groups: 1. Hand Clutch Group: Participants will complete a standardized simulation task using only the hand clutch button. 2. Foot Clutch Group: Participants will complete the exact same simulation task using only the foot clutch pedal. The simulator automatically tracks performance metrics such as task completion time, movement efficiency, instrument collisions, and technical errors. Immediately following the test, participants will fill out a short survey rating their satisfaction, comfort, and the learning difficulty of their assigned clutch method.

To prospect studying the efficacy and safety of treating NVG with the intracameral versus the intravitreal injection of Bevacizumab.

The goal of this trial is to evaluate the effects of two interventions : routine care plus Chinese Art Activities(+CAA) and routine care plus Chinese Art Activities combined with Peer Group Participation (+CAA+PGP) on psychological well-being, loneliness, happiness, relaxation, and salivary cortisol levels in elderly participants (aged 60-85, new residents with ≤1 year of stay). The main questions it aims to answer are: * Does the +CAA intervention improve psychological well-being and related outcomes compared to routine care? * Does the +CAA+PGP intervention provide additional benefits over +CAA alone? Researchers will compare three groups (Group A: +CAA, Group B: +CAA +PGP, Group C: routine care) to see if the interventions lead to immediate and sustained improvements in the measured outcomes. Participants will: * Undergo baseline assessments of psychological well-being(PWB), loneliness, happiness, relaxation, and salivary cortisol levels. * Receive their assigned intervention over three sessions within one week (Monday, Wednesday, Friday). * Complete outcome measures 30 minutes before and after each session. * Participate in a final follow-up assessment one week after the last session to evaluate sustained effects.

Using mechanical ventilation for more than 18 hours can affect respiratory muscle and postural muscle control, making it difficult to wean off the ventilator and reducing mobility. The aim of this study is to: 1. Compare the effects of respiratory muscle strength training and early mobilization on dynamic lung compliance and maximum inspiratory pressure before and after a 7-day training period. 2. Compare the success rate of weaning and the duration of weaning between the respiratory muscle strength training and the early mobilization program.

There are a few guidelines recommend about management of eosinophilia worldwide, most of guielines recommend a thorough history-taking and physical examination. Subsequently, investigations are requested based on suspected causes. In cases where parasite infection is suspected, particularly in developing countries, stool microscopy and serology are recommended. However, limitations such as low sensitivity of stool microscopy, the inconvenience of collecting multiple stool samples, and the high cost and unavailability of serology may arise. Consequently, some physicians opt for empiric anthelminthic regimens in managing eosinophilic patients, even without stool tests or if stool test results are normal. If subsequent complete blood count (CBC) results show a recovery of absolute eosinophil count, it is assumed that eosinophilia was caused by a parasite infection. While some studies demonstrate the efficacy and simplicity of this approach, there is a risk of overestimating parasite infection in eosinophilic patients, potential adverse drug reactions from unnecessary anthelminthic treatment, and the possibility of drug resistance due to inappropriate dosing. To address this gap, no study has yet compared the efficacy between specific anthelminthic treatment based on test results and empirical anthelminthic treatment in eosinophilic patients. Therefore, the investigators are conducting this study.

The goal of this randomized clinical trial is to compare the effect of higher (10 mg per day) versus standard (1 mg per day) doses of zinc supplementation The main questions it aims to answer are: * Growth velocities and delta z-scores during the date of start intervention until the end of the time interval (at least 2 weeks of intervention on date of 44 weeks of postmenstrual age or discharge whichever came first) in very preterm infants with a birthweight less than1800 grams. * Growth and neurodevelopment at 24 months postnatal age