Journal of Research in Medical Sciences1735-19953062202601281171611716EN20260107<p><strong>Background:</strong> Propofol and midazolam are the most commonly used sedatives in endoscopic procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare these two sedation regimens prescribed during outpatient endoscopy and colonoscopy procedures.</p><p><strong>Materials and Methods:</strong> In this randomized clinical trial, 242 low?risk anesthesia patients (American society of anesthesilogist [ASA] I–II) referred to the endoscopy and<br />colonoscopy ward of Al?Zahra Hospital, Isfahan, from January to June 2025, were studied. Patients were divided into two groups: sedation with propofol (P) and midazolam +  propofol (M + P). After the collection of data, they were analyzed through SPSS version 18 software.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> In the procedures, the P group had lower systolic blood pressure (BP) readings (P = 0.003) and a lower respiratory rate (RR) (P &lt; 0.001) compared to the control group. Heart rates were not different. Pain visual analogue scale scores were lower in the P group (P = 0.012), but endoscopist satisfaction scores and patient satisfaction scores were not different between groups. Recovery was lowered in the P group (P &lt; 0.001). Even though the requirement for the booster dose was more variable – occurring more often in the P group with endoscopy (P = 0.040) and in the M + P group with colonoscopy (P &lt; 0.001) – the average booster dose was equal (P = 0.126). A correlati on was found between body mass index and the booster dose of propofol in the P group.</p><p><strong> Conclusion:</strong> Propofol supplementation with midazolam enhanced some of the hysiological<br />parameters, like RR and systolic BP stability. However, it was at the expense of prolonged recovery and increased pain experience. Propofol alone ensured quicker recovery and greater analgesia but needed increased monitoring as a result of larger physiological excursions.<br /><br /></p>http://jrms.mui.ac.ir/index.php/jrms/article/view/11716http://jrms.mui.ac.ir/index.php/jrms/article/download/11716/6490

Journal of Research in Medical Sciences1735-19953062202601281171711717EN20260107<p><strong>Background:</strong> Several kinds of procedures have been introduced for surgical rectification of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and/or stress urinary incontinence (SUI) using various ynthetic meshes such as polypropylene (PP) material. Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) meshes have been proven to have higher biocompatibility, lower morbidity, and also less inflammatory and fibrotic reactions in comparison with PP meshes. Here, we intend to report a 2?year follow?up report of patients who had undergone transvaginal surgery using PVDF meshes to rectify POP and concomitant SUI.</p><p><strong>Materials and Methods:</strong> Between August 2015 and May 2024, 38 peri? or postmenopausal women with high?grade anterior compartment prolapse and concomitant SUI, who were nonresponsive to conservative management, were scheduled and underwent double?sling (anterior retropubic mid?urethral sling and posterior  ransobturator tape) surgery using a four?arm PVDF mesh. The patients were followed up for at least 24 months.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> Thirty?eight patients were enrolled in the study and followed for an average of 5.7 years. A statistically significant subjective improvement was observed after 2 years (P = 0.029) regarding the vaginal symptom score and SUI. Two?year outcomes for all these patients revealed an 83% anatomical success rate. Two mesh exposures were observed (5.2%) after 4 years. No other severe mesh?related complications were registered. Conclusion: Double sling with PVDF implant is a safe and convenient procedure for the selected women with high?grade anterior compartment prolapse and symptomatic<br />concomitant stress urine incontinence (SUI).<br /><br /></p>http://jrms.mui.ac.ir/index.php/jrms/article/view/11717http://jrms.mui.ac.ir/index.php/jrms/article/download/11717/6491

Journal of Research in Medical Sciences1735-19953062202601281171911719EN20260111<p><strong>Background:</strong> The rapid global increase in mobile phone use has raised concerns about the potential long?term health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. While most studies have focused on brain tumors, evidence regarding breast cancer remains limited. The objective of the study is to examine the association between mobile phone use and breast cancer risk among women in Iran.</p><p><strong> Materials and Methods:</strong> In this multicenter case–control study, 226 women were recruited from diagnostic, mammography, and radiotherapy centers across Iran and classified as controls (no history of breast cancer, n = 97), suspected cases (advised to undergo mammography due to breast?related complaints or physician recommendation, n = 52), and confirmed cases (histologically verified invasive breast cancer, n = 77). Structured questionnaires collected demographic, reproductive, lifestyle, and environmental data, including mobile phone call duration, screen time, and phone placement. Associations were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression, adjusting sequentially for demographic, reproductive, environmental, and lifestyle variables.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> In fully adjusted models, women reporting more than 60 min of daily mobile phone conversations had higher odds of confirmed breast cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 3.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02–11.97) and suspected status (OR = 10.84, 95% CI: 2.29–51.41) compared with those using phones &lt;10 min daily. Longer screen time (&gt;4 h/day), later age at menarche, lower education level, and exposure to environmental pollutants were also associated with increased odds.</p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Prolonged mobile phone use was associated with higher odds of breast cancer, but this does not imply causation. Given self?reported exposures and potential residual onfounding, findings should be interpreted cautiously. Larger prospective studies with objective exposure assessment are warranted.</p>http://jrms.mui.ac.ir/index.php/jrms/article/view/11719http://jrms.mui.ac.ir/index.php/jrms/article/download/11719/6494

Journal of Research in Medical Sciences1735-19953062202601281172011720EN20260111<p><strong>Background:</strong> Since inflammation and oxidative stress are risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, so it seems that ?-lipoic acid consumption as a potent antioxidant can improve vascular function and reduce the risk of vascular disease. The aim of this study is determine the impact of ALA supplementation on vascular function and inflammatory markers in patients who newly experienced stroke.</p><p><strong> Materials and Methods:</strong> In this randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 80 patients were randomly divided into two groups: ?-lipoic acid (600 mg ALA daily for 12 weeks) and placebo groups. Serum concentration of tumor necrosis factor?? (TNF??),  nterleukin?6 (IL?6), and high?sensitivity C?reactive protein (hs?CRP) were measured by  he ELISA method, and carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and flow-mediated dilation (FMD) were assessed using the Doppler ultrasound method. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS-16 and P values &lt;0.05 were considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> After 12 weeks’ supplementation, CIMT, FMD and hs-CRP changed between the ALA and placebo groups, significantly but we observed no significant difference in TNF-? and IL-6 levels either within or between the groups.</p><p><strong> Conclusion:</strong> The results showed that 600 mg ALA supplementation for 12 weeks improved CIMT, FMD and hs-CRP significantly so it seems that ALA supplementation may<br />reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.<br /><br /></p>http://jrms.mui.ac.ir/index.php/jrms/article/view/11720http://jrms.mui.ac.ir/index.php/jrms/article/download/11720/6495

Journal of Research in Medical Sciences1735-19953062202601281171811718EN20260107<p><strong>Background:</strong> Endocrine?disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which can interfere with endocrine hormones even before the prenatal period, can disrupt the development and function of the immune system and ultimately increase the susceptibility to allergies later in life.</p><p><strong>Materials and Methods:</strong> We performed a meta?analysis of studies examining the impact of environmental EDCs on allergic disorders. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus up to February 2025 for relevant observational human studies.<br />Allergies studied included allergic rhinitis, asthma, wheezing, atopic dermatitis, chicken pox, eczema, food allergy, hay fever, nonatopic asthma, otitis media, rhinoconjunctivitis, and wheeze.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> In the first stage, 2340 studies were included in our review, and finally, we identified 23 studies, including 12736 participants. The pooled results were calculated by the random?effects model. We observed a statistically significant association between EDCs and risk of allergies (pooled RR = 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04, 1.10; I2 = 42.80%; P &lt; 0.001) for overall population. The findings of meta?analysis showed also a positive significant association between exposure to environmental EDCs and risk of allergies in females (pooled RR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.06, 1.20; I2 = 28.20%; P = 0.021) and males (pooled RR = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.09, 1.19; I2 = 20.40%; P = 0.061).</p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> While most allergies showed a clear link with environmental pollution, the limited studies on specific allergies highlight the need for further research to enhance precision. Deeper investigations into underlying mechanisms and clinical implications are crucial for comprehensively understanding this association.<br /><br /></p>http://jrms.mui.ac.ir/index.php/jrms/article/view/11718http://jrms.mui.ac.ir/index.php/jrms/article/download/11718/6493