ReviewCureus2025
Nanotechnology-Enhanced Materials and Smart Implants in General Surgery: A Systematic Review of Human Clinical Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nanotechnology-enhanced materials and smart implants are emerging technologies that have shown promise in addressing various challenges in general surgery, including infection management, oncologic staging, and complication monitoring. In this systematic review, we aimed to examine the safety and efficacy of these technologies compared with conventional methods in patients undergoing general surgical procedures. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, IEEE Xplore/Inspec, and Google Scholar according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, using standardized keywords related to nanotechnology, surgery, and clinical outcomes. The included studies were categorized according to intervention class and procedural type. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for nonrandomized studies, while outcome certainty was evaluated using GRADE. Nine eligible studies were included, comprising a total of 2,250 participants (infection prevention: 974; mapping/staging: 1,244; sensing: 32 drain-fluid samples). Due to heterogeneity among the studies, a meta-analysis could not be performed, and the results were therefore synthesized narratively. Silver-based topical creams and dressings demonstrated early bacterial clearance and improved wound healing. Carbon nanoparticle (CNP) suspensions enhanced lymph node detection sensitivity and preserved parathyroid hormone in thyroid cancer and nearly doubled sensitivity to micrometastatic lymph nodes in gastric cancer. Silver-ion-impregnated tracers in breast cancer showed comparable sensitivity for sentinel lymph node detection. Silver-ion-impregnated meshes showed no significant difference compared with conventional meshes. Overall, adverse effects were minimal or absent. In conclusion, nanotechnology-enhanced materials and smart implants show substantial potential to improve infection prevention, oncologic staging, and perioperative monitoring in general surgery, with minimal adverse effects. Silver-based topical antimicrobials, CNP suspensions, superparamagnetic iron oxide tracers, and innovative biosensor technologies were either comparable or superior to conventional alternatives. However, a clear knowledge gap regarding long-term outcomes and the heterogeneity of comparators highlights the need for larger, rigorously designed studies to guide clinical adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.