Author: admin

Introduction

Male breast cancer is a rare malignancy, accounting for 0.5–1% of all breast cancer cases worldwide, with approximately 2,500 new cases diagnosed annually in the United States.¹ Clinical presentation most often involves a painless breast mass, and approximately half of patients have lymph node involvement at diagnosis.² Diagnostic evaluation relies on mammography and ultrasonography when a breast mass is suspected, since routine screening is not recommended for asymptomatic men.^3,4 Pathologic confirmation is essential, and genetic counseling and testing are recommended for all men with breast cancer due to the high prevalence of hereditary mutations.^5,6 Treatment strategies for MBC are largely extrapolated from female breast cancer (FBC) due to the paucity of prospective, male-specific trials.^2,5 According to Corrigan et al, male patients accounted for only 0.087% of participants across 131 breast cancer clinical trials.⁷ Mastectomy remains the most common surgical approach, though breast-conserving surgery with sentinel lymph node biopsy is a safe alternative in selected cases.^4,6,8 Adjuvant endocrine therapy, primarily tamoxifen for 5–10 years, is the mainstay for hormone receptor–positive disease, while an aromatase inhibitor (AI) should only be used in combination with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog if tamoxifen is contraindicated.^5,8,9 The role of chemotherapy and targeted therapies is determined by standard indications, with gene expression assays such as Oncotype DX increasingly used to guide adjuvant therapy decisions.^4,5,10 This comprehensive narrative review synthesizes the latest research on MBC using literature searches of current best practices and aims to provide an up-to-date summary of diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, highlight knowledge gaps, and underscore the need for increased inclusion of men in breast cancer research and clinical trials.

Epidemiology of MBC

MBC is a rare malignancy, globally accounting for approximately 0.6–1% of all breast cancer cases and about 0.3% of all cancers in men.⁵ Incidence rates for MBC have increased modestly over recent decades, with age-adjusted rates rising from 0.85 per 100,000 in 1975 to 1.19 per 100,000 in 2015 in the United States.¹¹ MBC patients are diagnosed at an older age than FBC patients (mean age 67 vs 62 years) and often present with more advanced disease.⁵ Comorbidities are more prevalent in MBC due to the older age at diagnosis, and these comorbid conditions may contribute to the observed differences in overall survival between men and women.¹² In addition, men with breast cancer have an increased risk of second primary malignancies, including melanoma, prostate, and gastrointestinal cancers, which further complicates management and impacts long-term outcomes.¹² Mortality rates for MBC are also higher than for FBC; large registry-based studies demonstrate that men have a 1.3- to 1.5-fold increased risk of death compared to women, even after adjustment for age, stage, and treatment.^11,13 A population-based cohort study of patients from the United Kingdom diagnosed with breast cancer demonstrated the survival probability for females one, five, and ten years after diagnosis was 95.1%, 80.2%, and 68.4%, and for males 92.9%, 69.0%, and 51.3%.¹⁴ Despite propensity score matching for age, stage, and treatment, some studies report that the survival gap between MBC and FBC narrows, but does not disappear, signaling that comorbidities and other non-cancer-related factors are contributors to excess mortality in men.^12,13,15,16 These findings underscore the need for tailored approaches to diagnosis and management in MBC, with particular attention to comorbidity assessment and optimization.

Risk Factors for MBC

Several risk factors have been identified for the development of MBC, including genetic mutations, hormonal imbalances, Black ethnicity, exposure to radiation, and family history.⁵ The most well-known genetic risk factors for MBC are BRCA2 and BRCA1 mutations, which are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Genetic predisposition to breast cancer is broadly similar between men and women, but there are important sex-specific features. BRCA2 is the predominant high-penetrance gene in MBC, while BRCA1 is more prominent in FBC.¹⁷ Recent large-scale analyses have affirmed that BRCA2 pathogenic variants confer a substantially higher risk of MBC than BRCA1, with relative risks of 44.0 for BRCA2 and 4.3 for BRCA1.¹⁸ Both BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated with increased risks of pancreatic and stomach cancers, with BRCA2 further linked to elevated prostate cancer risk.¹⁸ A large Italian case-control study demonstrated that pathogenic variants in genes other than BRCA1/2, particularly moderate-penetrance genes such as PALB2 and ATM, are also associated with a significantly increased risk of MBC.¹⁹ PALB2 variants conferred a sevenfold increased risk (OR: 7.28), and ATM variants a fivefold increased risk (OR: 4.79).¹⁹ Carriers of these variants were more likely to have a personal or family history of cancer, supporting the use of multigene panel testing in MBC patients to guide risk management and clinical decision-making.¹⁹ Klinefelter syndrome also increases the risk of MBC due to the extra X chromosome, which increases estrogen levels.²⁰ Other etiologies of hyperestrogenism in men that increase the risk of breast cancer include obesity, liver disease, or exogenous hormone exposure.¹ Finally, family history of breast cancer is among the compelling risk factors for MBC, with approximately 15–20% of cases having a family member with the disease, compared with 7% in the general male population.²¹

Clinical Presentation

MBC is typically diagnosed at an older age than FBC, with average ages of 68 and 62 years, respectively.²² MBC is also diagnosed at more advanced stages, with larger tumors and more nodal involvement, and up to 47% of men having axillary nodal involvement at the time of diagnosis.^22,23 The delayed stage at diagnosis may be due to limited awareness of presenting symptoms, which most commonly include a painless, firm breast lump and may be accompanied by nipple retraction, discharge, bleeding, or skin ulceration.²² Most MBC tumors are hormone-positive and ductal in etiology, reflecting the lower incidence of lobular carcinoma in men.²² For unknown reasons, papillary histology appears to be more frequent in men than in women.¹ Other histological subtypes of breast cancer are rare in men.

Diagnostic Approaches

Mammography and ultrasonography are commonly used in the evaluation of MBC. The American College of Radiology recommends ultrasound for men aged <25 years with an indeterminate palpable mass, and mammography is performed if suspicious or indeterminate features are noted on the ultrasound.²⁴ For men aged ≥25 years with an indeterminate palpable breast mass, a diagnostic mammogram is useful for distinguishing benign from malignant breast masses.²⁴ Carrasco et al demonstrated in a series of 638 patients that ultrasonography had a lower sensitivity of 88.9% compared to 95% for mammography in distinguishing benign from malignant disease but had a similarly high specificity of 95.3%.²⁵ There is no relevant literature regarding the use of breast MRI for the initial evaluation of MBC; therefore, it is not indicated for evaluation of palpable breast masses in men.²⁴ Once a suspicious lesion is detected, a core needle biopsy or fine-needle aspiration is essential to confirm histopathological diagnosis.

Treatment Strategy for Early-Stage Disease

Surgical treatment for early-stage MBC is based on early-stage FBC and has evolved over time. After reports demonstrated that sentinel lymph node sampling was as feasible and accurate in MBC as it was in FBC, it slowly replaced axillary lymph node dissection as the standard of care for staging MBC with a clinically node-negative axilla.^26,27 Similarly, mastectomy has traditionally been considered the standard surgical approach for male breast cancer, whereas lumpectomy is less commonly performed due to limited breast tissue and the typical proximity of tumors to the nipple–areolar complex. However, a review of The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database of MBC patients from 1983 to 2009 who underwent either mastectomy or lumpectomy demonstrated that lumpectomy was not independently associated with worse breast cancer-specific survival (odds ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.87–1.37) or overall survival (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.98–1.27) after controlling for age, race, stage, grade, and administration of radiotherapy.²⁸ In a retrospective analysis of 8,445 MBC patients from the National Cancer Database, breast-conserving therapy (BCT) was associated with improved survival compared to mastectomy.²⁹ Additionally, a prospective multi-institutional cohort study reported low postoperative complication rates with BCT, comparable to those seen in the FBC population.³⁰ While the underlying mechanisms of these associations require further investigation, current evidence suggests that BCT is a safe and feasible treatment option in MBC, offering clinically meaningful survival benefits.

Guidelines for adjuvant radiotherapy in early-stage MBC are limited, and postoperative radiation therapy is frequently underutilized in patients with MBC. Cardoso et al demonstrated that 45% of MBC patients treated with BCT, regardless of nodal status, and 30.7% of patients with lymph node positive tumors treated with mastectomy were not provided adjuvant radiotherapy.³¹ Generally, adjuvant radiation therapy should be provided according to the guidelines developed for FBC as multiple studies have suggested a clinically meaningful benefit for radiation therapy in men with early and locally advanced stages.³² For example, a SEER database analysis of males with stage I–III breast cancer between 2010 and 2015 demonstrated that postoperative radiation therapy was associated with improved survival, especially after breast-conserving surgery, for those with four or more positive lymph nodes or large primary tumors (T3/T4).³³ Similarly, a 2018 meta-analysis of 29 studies involving 10,065 men (23% with T4 tumors, 50% node-positive, and 93% having undergone mastectomy) found that 64% received adjuvant radiation, which was associated with improved locoregional control, overall survival, and distant metastasis-free survival.³⁴ Further investigations are necessary to improve our understanding and wider utilization of adjuvant radiotherapy for MBC.

In recent years, gene expression profile testing has guided adjuvant chemotherapy decisions and estimated the risk of distant recurrence in women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative early-stage breast cancer. The use of Oncotype DX and other genomic assays in MBC is based on extrapolation from FBC data, due to the rarity of MBC and the lack of male-specific clinical trial evidence.¹⁰ A SEER database review of this assay in 322 MBC patients demonstrated a larger proportion of men had an RS >31 and RS <10 compared to women, suggesting differences in tumor biology between men and women; the analysis also reported that increasing RS risk categories (RS <18, 18–30, and ≥31) were associated with decreased 5-year breast cancer-specific survival (99%, 96%, and 81%, respectively) and overall survival (93%, 86%, and 70%, respectively).³⁵ Among those with an RS ≥31, 67% of MBC patients and 71% of FBC patients received chemotherapy in the SEER analysis.³⁵ Although these results suggest the prognostic value of genomic assays in MBC, there is a lack of clinical trial data demonstrating the benefits of chemotherapy. Therefore, chemotherapy with or without HER2-targeted therapy should be recommended for males with breast cancer according to the guidelines for females with breast cancer.³⁶

The majority of male breast cancers are hormone receptor–positive, with approximately 99% expressing estrogen receptors (ER) and 81% expressing progesterone receptors (PR).³¹ In early-stage MBC with hormone receptor positive tumors, tamoxifen, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, is the most utilized adjuvant endocrine therapy, and has been demonstrated to reduce recurrence risk and improve overall survival based on observational studies.^37,38 A meta-analysis by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group showed that tamoxifen significantly reduced the risk of recurrence in patients with MBC, corresponding to its efficacy in FBC. In contrast, retrospective studies have demonstrated worse survival outcomes among patients with MBC treated with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) than among those treated with tamoxifen.³⁹ Thus, AI monotherapy is not preferred in MBC, although men with hormone receptor positive breast cancer who have contraindications to tamoxifen may be offered a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist with an AI, which may help overcome the lack of estradiol suppression with AI monotherapy.¹² Although there are no clinical trials on early-stage MBC to guide the optimal duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy, extrapolation from FBC studies suggests that the duration should be at least five years, with an extended duration of ten years in men with a high risk of recurrence.⁴⁰ Adjuvant cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors can also be used in MBC with a high risk of recurrence, as demonstrated in the MonarchE trial, which enrolled 21 male patients (0.7%) in the intent-to-treat population and showed that abemaciclib with endocrine therapy resulted in absolute improvements in 3-year invasive disease-free survival and distant recurrence-free survival rates of 5.4% and 4.2%, respectively.⁴¹

Treatment Strategy for Advanced-Stage Disease

According to NCCN guidelines, the management of advanced breast cancer in men is generally aligned with established approaches used in women. Metastatic hormone receptor positive disease is treated with endocrine therapies such as tamoxifen, a GnRH agonist combined with an AI, or fulvestrant.⁵ Unlike FBC, concurrent administration of a GnRH analog is recommended when an AI is used in MBC.³⁶ A prospective, randomized Phase II study in MBC found that combining an AI with a GnRH agonist led to greater suppression of serum estradiol levels compared to historical controls treated with AI monotherapy.⁹ In addition, population studies have shown improved responses with the combination of an AI and a GnRH analog over AI monotherapy, likely due to the inadequate suppression of testicular estrogen production by AIs alone.⁴² Collectively, these findings support the use of combined AI and GnRH agonist therapy in men. A pooled literature analysis also demonstrated the efficacy of fulvestrant monotherapy, with a median progression-free survival of 5 months, comparable to efficacy in females.⁴³ Finally, evidence supporting the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in men remains limited, as the pivotal clinical trials evaluating these agents have predominantly included female participants. Kraus et al demonstrated that palbociclib combined with endocrine therapy was associated with a longer median treatment duration and higher real-world response rates compared to endocrine therapy alone, with a safety profile consistent with that observed in women, supporting the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in metastatic hormone receptor positive MBC.⁴⁴ Another retrospective study of MBC patients treated with either palbociclib (n=16) or ribociclib (n=9), in combination with a GnRH analog and either fulvestrant or an AI, reported a median progression-free survival of 10 months in the second-line setting—comparable to outcomes observed in the MONALEESA-3 and PALOMA-3 trials involving postmenopausal women.^45–47 Other therapies, such as mTOR inhibitors, PIK3CA inhibitors, or other specific targeted agents, lack specific clinical trial data for MBC, and recommendations regarding these agents are extrapolated from studies of female participants and real-world data. Similarly, recommendations regarding chemotherapy, HER2-targeted agents, immunotherapy, and PARP inhibitors in advanced MBC have been extrapolated from FBC.⁴⁸

Conclusion

In summary, MBC is a rare disease that is typically diagnosed at an older age and more advanced stage than FBC, with distinct risk profiles and unique challenges in diagnosis and management. Current therapeutic strategies for MBC are largely extrapolated from FBC due to the underrepresentation of men in clinical trials and the scarcity of male-specific prospective or randomized data. This review is limited by the current evidence base on MBC, which is largely derived from retrospective and registry-based studies characterized by small sample sizes and substantial heterogeneity across study design and outcome reporting. These methodological limitations reduce the generalizability of findings and hinder the ability to draw definitive conclusions about optimal management strategies in men. Furthermore, important biological and clinical differences between MBC and FBC—such as hormone receptor status, genetic predisposition, and tumor biology—may not be fully captured or addressed by current treatment paradigms that are primarily derived from studies in women. Future research should prioritize inclusion of men in clinical trials, promote multinational data collaboration, and support the development of tailored management strategies that reflect the distinct biology and clinical course of MBC. Addressing these gaps will be essential to improving outcomes and quality of life for men diagnosed with this disease.

Author Contributions

All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in the drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

1. Giordano SH, Cohen DS, Buzdar AU, Perkins G, Hortobagyi GN. Breast carcinoma in men: a population-based study. Cancer. 2004;101(1):51–57. doi:10.1002/cncr.20312

2. Zheng G, Leone JP. Male breast cancer: an updated review of epidemiology, clinicopathology, and treatment. J Oncol. 2022;2022:1–11. doi:10.1155/2022/1734049

3. Bhardwaj PV, Gupta S, Elyash A, Teplinsky E. Male breast cancer: a review on diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Curr Oncol Rep. 2024;26(1):34–45. doi:10.1007/s11912-023-01489-z

4. Khan NAJ, Tirona M. An updated review of epidemiology, risk factors, and management of male breast cancer. Med Oncol. 2021;38(4):39. doi:10.1007/s12032-021-01486-x

5. Hassett MJ, Somerfield MR, Baker ER, et al. Management of male breast cancer: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(16):1849–1863. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.03120

6. Rutherford CL, Goodman D, Lannigan A. A systematic literature review of the management, oncological outcomes and psychosocial implications of male breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022;48(10):2104–2111. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2022.06.004

7. Corrigan KL, Mainwaring W, Miller AB, et al. Exclusion of men from randomized phase iii breast cancer clinical trials. Oncologist. 2020;25(6):e990–e992. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0871

8. Lin AP, Huang TW, Tam KW. Treatment of male breast cancer: meta-analysis of real-world evidence. Br J Surg. 2021;108(9):1034–1042. doi:10.1093/bjs/znab279

9. Reinisch M, Seiler S, Hauzenberger T, et al. Efficacy of endocrine therapy for the treatment of breast cancer in men: results from the MALE Phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(4):565–572. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7442

10. Ray SK, Mukherjee S. Clinical aspect of male breast cancer: a burgeoning and unaddressed issue. Mol Biol Rep. 2025;52(1):452. doi:10.1007/s11033-025-10558-4

11. Wang F, Shu X, Meszoely I, et al. Overall mortality after diagnosis of breast cancer in men vs women. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(11):1589. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2803

12. Giordano SH. Breast cancer in men. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(24):2311–2320. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1707939

13. Graf M, Gerken M, Klinkhammer-Schalke M, et al. Clinical, therapeutic and prognostic differences between male and female patients with breast cancer—a comparison of 2510 men and 307,634 women in a registry-based study in Germany. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2025;151(6):181. doi:10.1007/s00432-025-06220-y

14. Barclay NL, Burn E, Delmestri A, et al. Trends in incidence, prevalence, and survival of breast cancer in the United Kingdom from 2000 to 2021. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):19069. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-69006-1

15. Han Y, Wang J, Wang Z, Xu B. Sex-based heterogeneity in the clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of breast cancer: a population-based analysis. Front Oncol. 2021;11. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.642450

16. Scomersi S, Giudici F, Cacciatore G, et al. Comparison between male and female breast cancer survival using propensity score matching analysis. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):11639. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-91131-4

17. Valentini V, Bucalo A, Conti G, et al. Gender-specific genetic predisposition to breast cancer: BRCA genes and beyond. Cancers. 2024;16(3):579. doi:10.3390/cancers16030579

18. Li S, Silvestri V, Leslie G, et al. Cancer risks associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(14):1529–1541. doi:10.1200/JCO.21.02112

19. Bucalo A, Conti G, Valentini V, et al. Male breast cancer risk associated with pathogenic variants in genes other than BRCA1/2: an Italian case-control study. Eur J Cancer. 2023;188:183–191. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2023.04.022

20. Cook B, Nayar S, Filson S, Yap T. The incidence of male breast cancer in Klinefelter Syndrome and its proposed mechanisms. Breast. 2024;78:103827. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2024.103827

21. Giordano SH, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi GN. Breast cancer in men. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(8):678–687. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-137-8-200210150-00013

22. van den Bruele AB, Williams A, Weiss A, Collaborators from the Society of Surgical Oncology Breast Disease Site Work Group. Commentary and updates on the management of male breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2025;32(4):2265–2270. doi:10.1245/s10434-024-16756-x

23. Mathew J, Perkins GH, Stephens T, Middleton LP, Yang WT. Primary breast cancer in men: clinical, imaging, and pathologic findings in 57 patients. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(6):1631–1639. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1076

24. Niell BL, Lourenco AP, Expert Panel on Breast Imaging, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria^® Evaluation of the symptomatic male breast. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(11S):S313–S320. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2018.09.017

25. Muñoz Carrasco R, Alvarez Benito M, Muñoz Gomariz E, Raya Povedano JL, Martínez Paredes M. Mammography and ultrasound in the evaluation of male breast disease. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(12):2797–2805. doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1867-7

26. Albo D, Ames FC, Hunt KK, Ross MI, Singletary SE, Kuerer HM. Evaluation of lymph node status in male breast cancer patients: a role for sentinel lymph node biopsy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;77(1):9–14. doi:10.1023/a:1021173902253

27. Boughey JC, Bedrosian I, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Comparative analysis of sentinel lymph node operation in male and female breast cancer patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203(4):475–480. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.06.014

28. Cloyd JM, Hernandez-Boussard T, Wapnir IL. Outcomes of partial mastectomy in male breast cancer patients: analysis of SEER, 1983–2009. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(5):1545–1550. doi:10.1245/s10434-013-2918-5

29. Bateni SB, Davidson AJ, Arora M, et al. Is breast-conserving therapy appropriate for male breast cancer patients? A National Cancer Database Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(7):2144–2153. doi:10.1245/s10434-019-07159-4

30. Elmi M, Sequeira S, Azin A, Elnahas A, McCready DR, Cil TD. Evolving surgical treatment decisions for male breast cancer: an analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;171(2):427–434. doi:10.1007/s10549-018-4830-y

31. Cardoso F, Bartlett JMS, Slaets L, et al. Characterization of male breast cancer: results of the EORTC 10085/TBCRC/BIG/NABCG International Male Breast Cancer Program. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(2):405–417. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx651

32. Korde LA, Zujewski JA, Kamin L, et al. Multidisciplinary meeting on male breast cancer: summary and research recommendations. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(12):2114–2122. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.25.5729

33. Wu P, He D, Zhu S, et al. The role of postoperative radiation therapy in stage I-III male breast cancer: a population-based study from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database. Breast. 2022;65:41–48. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2022.06.004

34. Jardel P, Vignot S, Cutuli B, et al. Should adjuvant radiation therapy be systematically proposed for male breast cancer? A systematic review. Anticancer Res. 2018;38(1):23–31. doi:10.21873/anticanres.12187

35. Massarweh SA, Sledge GW, Miller DP, McCullough D, Petkov VI, Shak S. Molecular characterization and mortality from breast cancer in men. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(14):1396–1404. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.76.8861

36. Gao Y, Goldberg JE, Young TK, Babb JS, Moy L, Heller SL. Breast cancer screening in high-risk men: a 12-year longitudinal observational study of male breast imaging utilization and outcomes. Radiology. 2019;293(2):282–291. doi:10.1148/radiol.2019190971

37. Harlan LC, Zujewski JA, Goodman MT, Stevens JL. Breast cancer in men in the United States: a population-based study of diagnosis, treatment, and survival. Cancer. 2010;116(15):3558–3568. doi:10.1002/cncr.25153

38. Giordano SH, Perkins GH, Broglio K, et al. Adjuvant systemic therapy for male breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;104(11):2359–2364. doi:10.1002/cncr.21526

39. Eggemann H, Altmann U, Costa SD, Ignatov A. Survival benefit of tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor in male and female breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018;144(2):337–341. doi:10.1007/s00432-017-2539-7

40. Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J, et al. Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9869):805–816. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61963-1

41. Harbeck N, Rastogi P, Martin M, et al. Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for high-risk early breast cancer: updated efficacy and Ki-67 analysis from the monarchE study. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(12):1571–1581. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.015

42. Doyen J, Italiano A, Largillier R, Ferrero JM, Fontana X, Thyss A. Aromatase inhibition in male breast cancer patients: biological and clinical implications. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(6):1243–1245. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdp450

43. Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN, Chrysikos D, Dimopoulos MA, Psaltopoulou T. Fulvestrant and male breast cancer: a pooled analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149(1):269–275. doi:10.1007/s10549-014-3240-z

44. Kraus AL, Yu-Kite M, Mardekian J, et al. Real-world data of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer in men. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2022;111(1):302–309. doi:10.1002/cpt.2454

45. Yıldırım HÇ, Mutlu E, Chalabiyev E, et al. Clinical outcomes of cyclin-dependent kinase 4-6 (CDK 4-6) inhibitors in patients with male breast cancer: a multicenter study. Breast. 2022;66:85–88. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2022.09.009

46. Slamon DJ, Neven P, Chia S, et al. Overall Survival with ribociclib plus fulvestrant in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(6):514–524. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1911149

47. Turner NC, Slamon DJ, Ro J, et al. Overall survival with palbociclib and fulvestrant in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1926–1936. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1810527

48. Duma N, Hoversten KP, Ruddy KJ. Exclusion of male patients in breast cancer clinical trials. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2018;2(2):pky018. doi:10.1093/jncics/pky018

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a common yet serious trauma, which can have a significant impact on the physiological and psychological health of patients.¹ Following TBI, some patients may require tracheostomy to ensure airway patency and facilitate adequate gas exchange.² Tracheostomy is not a cure for TBI but rather a means to address the severe impact of brain injury on respiratory system function.³ However, studies⁴ have indicated that patients undergoing tracheostomy after TBI are at risk of various serious complications, including respiratory system infections, pulmonary inflammation, and neurological dysfunction. These complications may exacerbate the patient’s condition, prolong hospitalization, and increase the risk of mortality. Therefore, effective nursing care and management for such patients are crucial. Given the complexity of care required for TBI patients undergoing tracheostomy, interdisciplinary collaboration among physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, and rehabilitation specialists is essential to ensure comprehensive and continuous care. Integrating diverse professional perspectives and skill sets can enhance patient monitoring, optimize airway management, and improve rehabilitation outcomes.

Comprehensive nursing has shown significant advantages across various diseases and medical conditions.^5,6 However, its application in patients with tracheostomy following TBI remains insufficiently studied. Thus, this study aims to investigate the effects of comprehensive nursing on the respiratory system and lungs of patients undergoing tracheostomy after TBI, with the aim of providing more effective nursing strategies and guidance for clinical practice.

Data and Methods

Basic Information

A retrospective analysis of clinical data was conducted on 87 patients who underwent tracheostomy after TBI in our hospital from January 2022 to January 2024. Inclusion criteria: ① Confirmed history of TBI and imaging examination; ② Age ≥ 18 years, gender unspecified; ③ Time from injury to admission < 24 h; ④ Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)⁷ score ≤ 5–12 points; ⑤ Meeting the surgical indications for tracheostomy (presence of aspiration or positive sputum culture within 24 h of admission) and successful completion of tracheostomy; ⑥ Postoperative requirement for mechanical ventilation; ⑦ Relative stability of the patient’s condition; ⑧ Complete clinical data available for analysis. Exclusion criteria: ① Death upon arrival or death within 24 h due to severe hemorrhagic shock or severe trauma; ② Severe organ dysfunction; ③ Severe cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases; ④ Severe infections, endocrine disorders, or malignant tumors; ⑤ Immunodeficiency, coagulation, or hematopoietic abnormalities; ⑥Severe malnutrition; ⑦ Prolonged deep coma; ⑧ Lung dynamic compliance affected by trauma-induced conditions such as pneumothorax, sternum, or rib fractures; ⑨ Allergic reactions or relevant contraindications to the treatment and intervention methods adopted in this study. Patients were divided into a control group (n = 43), which received routine nursing care, and an intervention group (n = 44), which received comprehensive nursing care, based on the nursing interventions received. The comparability of baseline data between the two groups (P>0.05) is shown in Table 1. This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College. Informed consent was obtained from all study participants. All the methods were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

To minimize the impact of potential confounding variables, efforts were made to ensure consistency in medical support across both groups. All patients were managed within the same neurosurgical intensive care unit during the study period, with standardized physician involvement and respiratory therapist coverage. Staffing levels, including nurse-to-patient ratios, were maintained according to institutional ICU protocols and did not differ between groups. However, detailed quantitative data on staffing ratios, physician contact hours, and respiratory therapist involvement were not separately recorded for each patient. To minimize variability in interdisciplinary care, all patients were treated in the same neurosurgical intensive care unit under uniform institutional protocols. Standardized access to respiratory therapists and attending physicians was maintained across both groups throughout the study period. However, quantitative metrics such as individual contact hours or staffing ratios were not separately recorded. Involvement of speech-language pathologists was limited, given that the majority of patients had moderate to severe impairment of consciousness (GCS ≤ 12), and thus were not appropriate candidates for routine speech or swallowing interventions during the early postoperative phase.

Methods

All surgeries were performed by the same team of doctors and nursing staff, and preoperative nursing methods were consistent. Although no formal checklist was used, all comprehensive nursing interventions were implemented according to predefined procedures outlined in departmental nursing guidelines to ensure consistency across cases. Postoperatively, the control group received routine nursing interventions, including intervention of the patient’s condition, monitoring of vital signs, nasal feeding care, skin care, manual percussion, and suctioning as needed. The intervention group received comprehensive nursing interventions, including the following components: (1) Ward Placement: Where conditions permitted, patients were preferably placed in single rooms to minimize the risk of cross-infection. The period from 3 to 7 days postoperatively is the peak period for complications. During this time, special attention was paid to the cleanliness of the ward environment and the patient’s bedridden position. Semi-recumbent positioning was recommended to maintain airway patency, reduce the risk of respiratory and pulmonary complications, and improve patient oxygen saturation. Ultraviolet disinfection was performed at least twice daily for approximately 30 minutes each time. Meanwhile, nursing staff ensured appropriate room temperature and humidity and regularly opened windows for ventilation to maintain fresh indoor air. Additionally, strict control of the number of visitors was enforced, and all visitors were required to wear isolation gowns to reduce the potential harm of external viruses to the patients. (2) Strict Aseptic Operation: Nursing staff must disinfect themselves and wear isolation gowns when performing tracheostomy tube changes and other routine care for patients. All tools and equipment used must be disinfected, and disposable items must be replaced immediately to prevent reuse. After completing the nursing procedure, nursing staff needed to disinfect again to prevent cross-infection. (3) Airway Humidification: Airway humidification plays an indispensable role in reducing the risk of patient-related complications. Physiological saline was used for airway humidification and changed regularly every day. Patients underwent airway humidification four times daily, with professional nursing staff monitoring each session to assess respiratory conditions based on the patient’s symptoms during humidification. If the patient experienced increased respiratory rate, increased respiratory resistance, and wheezing, suctioning was performed immediately. (4) Enhanced Positioning and Percussion: To improve patient recovery, nursing staff repositioned patients every 2 hours and performed percussion before suctioning. During percussion, nursing staff used the back of their hand to form a semicircle with four fingers together, percussing from top to bottom and around the lungs to enhance the repositioning effect. Suctioning was performed from inner to outer, with gentle and swift movements during each suctioning to reduce or avoid discomfort to the patient. (5) Observation of Vital Signs: Postoperatively, nursing staff regularly observed patients’ vital signs, including pupil size and light reaction. During suctioning, nursing staff also observed other vital signs such as changes in facial color, pupil constriction, and heart rate. If the patient showed any abnormal signs, suctioning was immediately stopped, and the doctor was contacted promptly for further management. (6) Pain Management: Nursing staff must be proficient in postoperative pain management methods, clarify the use and dosage of analgesic drugs, and take necessary preventive measures for pain management. Patients and their families should be informed about the impact of emotions on postoperative pain and helped to alleviate negative emotions through psychological intervention. (7) Health Education and Daily Care: Nursing staff regularly conducted health education sessions to educate patients and their families about disease-related treatment knowledge and precautions. In terms of daily care, nursing staff regularly assessed patients’ health and recovery status, developed nutrition diet plans and daily rehabilitation training programs, and provided personalized services such as dietary care and rehabilitation training based on the patient’s specific condition. For comatose patients, nursing staff and family members called the patient’s name every 2 hours to promote awakening. For conscious patients, comfort and encouragement were provided, and detailed explanations of postoperative rehabilitation were given to patients’ families. Health education was conducted through various means such as language, text, audio, and visual aids to answer patients’ and families’ questions and provide positive feedback to enhance treatment confidence. Massage and acupressure were used to relieve pressure on patients’ pressure points, and air mattresses were used to alleviate compression. Additionally, protective rails were added bedside to prevent accidents such as falling out of bed. Supplementary Table 1 summarizes the comprehensive nursing protocol.

The selection and prioritization of comprehensive nursing interventions were based on a review of departmental nursing guidelines, clinical consensus among senior ICU nursing staff, and evidence from prior studies on postoperative care in tracheostomized patients. Interventions were prioritized according to their relevance to common complications observed in the early postoperative period, such as pulmonary infection, airway obstruction, and impaired consciousness. Specific measures (eg, aseptic procedures, airway humidification, and frequent repositioning) were implemented early and intensively during the critical window of 3–7 days post-tracheostomy, identified as the peak risk period for complications. Psychological support and education were emphasized throughout hospitalization to promote patient engagement and recovery.

Observational Indicators

Perioperative Indicators

Including postoperative monitoring time, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of tube placement, length of ICU stay, and total length of hospital stay were compared between the control and intervention groups.

Hemodynamic Indicators

Preoperatively and at 2 weeks postoperatively, using non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring equipment to measure patients’ systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), and oxygen saturation (SpO2) levels.

Sputum Clearance and Suctioning

Including: daily sputum volume, frequency of suctioning, duration of suctioning.

Neurological Function

Pre-intervention and post-intervention, assessing patients’ neurological function using the Clinical Neurological Deficit Scale (CSS),⁸ which includes eight dimensions: consciousness, language, facial muscles, upper limb muscle strength, lower limb muscle strength, hand muscle strength, gaze function, and walking ability. The scale consists of 10 items with scores ranging from 0 to 45 points, with higher scores indicating worse neurological deficits.

Prognosis

Pre-intervention and post-intervention, evaluating patients’ prognosis using the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)⁹ and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II).¹⁰ GOS scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating better prognosis; the APACHE II scale includes 12 items scored from 0 to 4 points in a negative direction, with a total score of 71 points, and higher scores indicating poorer prognosis.

Pain Assessment

Pre-intervention and post-intervention, assessing patients’ pain using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS),¹¹ where 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates unbearable severe pain, with scores positively correlated with pain intensity.

Complications

Including: pulmonary infection, cerebral edema, airway injury, sputum blockage, bleeding.

Statistical Analysis

GraphPad Prism 8.0 software (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) was used for graphing, and SPSS 20.0 was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics for continuous data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (), and normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. For variables meeting the normality assumption (P > 0.05), group comparisons were performed using the independent samples t-test; categorical data were presented as n (%), and analyzed using the chi-square test. P-value < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Given the number of outcome measures assessed, no formal correction for multiple comparisons (eg, Bonferroni correction) was applied. The primary aim of the analysis was exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory. Therefore, findings should be interpreted with caution, particularly for secondary outcomes, as the risk of type I error may be increased due to multiple statistical tests.

Results

Comparison of Perioperative Indicators

The intervention group showed significantly shorter postoperative monitoring time, duration of mechanical ventilation, tube placement, ICU stay, and total hospital stay compared to the control group (P < 0.05), as shown in Table 2. In addition, no significant differences were found between the two groups in the prevalence of common comorbidities, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, uremia, liver cirrhosis, coronary artery disease, and stroke (P > 0.05), indicating comparability in baseline health status.

Table 2 Comparison of Perioperative Indicators

Comparison of Hemodynamic Indicators

As shown in Figure 1, in the intervention group, SBP and DBP levels decreased after two weeks, while SpO₂ levels increased more significantly than that in the control group (P < 0.05).

Figure 1 Comparison of Hemodynamic Indicator (). Notes: Comparison with preoperative levels, *P < 0.05; denotes mean ± standard deviation.

Comparison of Sputum and Suctioning Conditions

The intervention group had a higher daily sputum volume compared to the control group, with lower suctioning frequency and duration (P < 0.05), as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Comparison of Sputum and Suctioning Conditions

Comparison of Neurological, Prognostic, and Pain Conditions

As illustrated in Figure 2, post-intervention GOS scores significantly increased in both groups compared to baseline, whereas CSS, APACHE II, and VAS scores significantly decreased. The intervention group exhibited a greater magnitude of improvement across all indices (P < 0.05).

Figure 2 Comparison of Neurological, Prognostic, and Pain Conditions (, score). Notes: Compared to before intervention, *P < 0.05; between groups, #P < 0.05. denotes mean ± standard deviation.

Comparison of Complications

The incidence of complications in the intervention group (9.09%) was lower than that in the control group (27.91%) (P < 0.05), as shown in Table 4. To ensure that the observed differences in complication rates were not confounded by pre-existing differences in patient condition, baseline severity was assessed by comparing the prevalence of common comorbidities between groups. No significant differences were found in the rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, uremia, liver cirrhosis, coronary artery disease, and stroke (P > 0.05), as reported in Section 2.1. This suggests that the two groups were comparable in terms of baseline health status, thereby strengthening the validity of the association between the comprehensive nursing intervention and the lower incidence of complications.

Table 4 Comparison of Complications [n (%)]

Discussion

Patients with TBI are characterized by rapid onset, severe condition, rapid changes, and a high incidence of postoperative complications.^12,13 The nursing care for these patients has certain specificity, and any problem in any link may lead to unnecessary losses for patients, even resulting in a vegetative state or death. Despite continuous improvements in modern medical equipment and treatment methods, patients with TBI still face potential life-threatening risks postoperatively. Tracheostomy, as an indispensable basic technique in emergency medicine for TBI, effectively saves patients’ lives. However, its application can also affect the normal physiological functions of some respiratory tract components, such as humidification, heating, and partial defense functions, thereby affecting the patient’s coughing and sputum ability, increasing the accumulation of respiratory secretions, and easily leading to complications such as pulmonary infections, which are one of the main reasons for the death of patients with TBI.^14,15 Therefore, it is crucial to prevent complications in tracheostomized patients. Regarding the changes in hemodynamic parameters, the observed reductions in SBP and DBP in the intervention group may reflect improved cardiovascular stability and a reduction in sympathetic nervous system activity, which is crucial in critically ill patients. These changes are particularly important in the context of TBI, where managing blood pressure and preventing further cardiovascular stress are essential to improving patient outcomes. Additionally, the increase in SpO₂ level observed in the intervention group suggests better pulmonary function and oxygenation, likely due to improved airway management and respiratory care provided as part of the comprehensive nursing intervention. Improved SpO₂ level is clinically significant as it reduces the risk of hypoxia-related complications, such as organ dysfunction or secondary brain injury, and may contribute to faster recovery and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation. Finding targeted nursing interventions that match the specific characteristics of patients’ diseases is of great significance and clinical value. Comprehensive nursing, as an important part of comprehensive treatment measures, focuses on patients as the core, comprehensively improves patients’ physiological, psychological, and social functions through multidisciplinary cooperation and multilevel interventions.¹⁶ In patients with TBI who undergo tracheostomy, comprehensive nursing not only includes direct care for the respiratory system, such as proper airway management and assisted ventilation with a respirator, but also involves comprehensive assessment and intervention of the patient’s overall condition, such as pain management, nutritional support, and bed turning. Through this comprehensive nursing approach, the occurrence of complications can be minimized, and the quality of life and recovery rate of patients can be improved to the greatest extent.

In the present study, although SpO₂ levels in the control group increased two weeks after surgery, this should not be interpreted as a better outcome compared to the intervention group. The increase observed in the control group was relatively modest and may have reflected the natural recovery process or the effects of standard respiratory support. In contrast, the intervention group exhibited a more significant improvement in SpO₂ level, which was consistent with better airway management, more efficient sputum clearance, and reduced suctioning frequency and duration under the comprehensive nursing model. These factors likely contributed to enhanced oxygenation efficiency and respiratory stability, thereby reflecting the superiority of the intervention over routine care. It is important to recognize that the observed improvements in clinical outcomes are not solely attributable to nursing care in isolation. Rather, comprehensive nursing interventions function synergistically in a broader interprofessional framework. In the context of tracheostomy management, respiratory therapists play a critical role in optimizing ventilatory support, maintaining airway patency, and facilitating sputum clearance through advanced techniques and equipment management. Moreover, speech-language pathologists are essential for assessing swallowing function and initiating communication strategies, particularly in patients recovering from neurological injury. Physicians and other allied health professionals also contribute significantly through diagnostic oversight and therapeutic decision-making. The effectiveness of the comprehensive nursing model, therefore, should be understood as integrated within this multidisciplinary ecosystem, thereby enhancing patient safety, recovery, and quality of care.

Importantly, the improved outcomes observed in this study should be interpreted in the context of interprofessional collaboration, which has emerged as a cornerstone of modern tracheostomy care. The intervention implemented here reflects principles advocated by the Global Tracheostomy Collaborative (GTC), which emphasize multidisciplinary teamwork, standardized protocols, and patient-centered care as key drivers for improving safety and outcomes in tracheostomized patients.^17,18 Notably, the comprehensive nursing model employed was not limited to nursing actions in isolation but was embedded within a collaborative care structure involving respiratory therapists, speech-language pathologists, physicians, and other allied health professionals. This team-based approach is supported by clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews that highlight the effectiveness of interprofessional tracheostomy teams in reducing complications, improving communication, and facilitating earlier decannulation.^19,20 Therefore, the success of the intervention group in terms of shorter hospital stays, improved hemodynamic stability, and reduced complication rates likely stems not only from high-quality nursing care, but also from the synergistic contributions of an interdisciplinary care model aligned with evidence-based global standards. A study²¹ found that factors such as postoperative tracheostomy decannulation and pain in patients with TBI can increase stress responses, causing abnormal fluctuations in hemodynamics, thereby prolonging maintenance and treatment time. In this study, a comprehensive nursing model was applied for intervention in the postoperative care of patients with craniocerebral trauma undergoing tracheostomy. The results showed that compared to routine care, the comprehensive nursing model significantly shortened the postoperative monitoring time, mechanical ventilation time, tracheostomy duration, ICU stay, and total hospital stay for patients. This is conducive to maintaining postoperative hemodynamic stability in the body. These results share commonalities with previous related studies.^22,23 The reason for this may lie in the fact that comprehensive nursing promotes patient recovery from multiple aspects, such as timely encouragement and comfort for awakening patients, and softly waking up comatose patients; strengthening postoperative patient health education, providing suctioning, pain management, and other care to ensure patient airway patency, and accelerate postoperative recovery. Regarding prognosis, the results of this study showed that the CSS scores, APACHE II scores, and VAS scores in the intervention group were lower than those in the control group, while the GOS score was higher than that in the control group, indicating that comprehensive nursing intervention can effectively improve the quality of patient prognosis and alleviate patient suffering. The reason for this lies in the fact that the comprehensive nursing model formulates nursing measures from multiple aspects such as postoperative pain management, early rehabilitation training, psychological counseling, etc., to keep patients in a more comfortable physical and mental state after surgery.²⁴ Nurses will guide family members to accompany patients, urge patients to undergo early rehabilitation training, maintain a comfortable environment in the ward, enhance cognition through health education, cooperate with treatment, and improve prognosis quality. In addition, patients after tracheostomy often suffer from significant pain. Comprehensive nursing will provide corresponding analgesic treatment based on the patient’s pain situation, while counseling patients on negative emotions, formulating pain management content, observing tracheal intubation conditions, etc., thereby ensuring that the patient’s vital signs remain stable, which is beneficial to the recovery of bodily functions. Regarding complications, the results of this study showed that the incidence of complications in the intervention group was lower than that in the control group. This result suggests that comprehensive nursing can reduce the risk of patient-related complications to a certain extent. Patients in a coma after surgery have no autonomous consciousness, and neurological and brain tissue damage. Tracheostomy can easily lead to infections in the respiratory tract and lungs.²⁵ In comprehensive nursing, nurses will closely monitor the intubation situation and provide corresponding interventions throughout the process, thereby reducing the risk of complications such as sputum plug blockage, airway damage, and lung infection. In addition, comprehensive nursing interventions will also alleviate pressure on patient pressure points through massage, gentle pressing, etc., help patients avoid pressure injuries, and assist patients in recovering as quickly as possible through diet, rehabilitation exercises, etc., thereby further reducing the risk of complications.

However, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, the relatively small sample size might limit the statistical power and generalizability of the findings. Secondly, the retrospective study design might increase the risk of information bias and treatment selection bias. Specifically, the absence of randomization and prospective data collection might introduce selection bias, thereby compromising the internal validity and making it more difficult to draw definitive causal inferences. Thirdly, as a single-center study, the findings may not be widely generalizable to other healthcare settings with different patient populations or clinical practices. Finally, individual differences, such as baseline health status, lifestyle factors, and adherence to treatment were not fully considered, which might influence the observed outcomes. Future studies should aim to overcome these limitations by employing prospective, multicenter designs with larger and more diverse samples, while also accounting for patient-level variability to enhance the credibility and applicability of the results.

Conclusion

The findings of this retrospective study suggested that comprehensive nursing care could be associated with improved outcomes in patients undergoing tracheostomy after TBI. Patients in the intervention group demonstrated better recovery trajectories, including more stable hemodynamic parameters, reduced pain levels, fewer complications, and enhanced neurological and prognostic indicators. While these results are encouraging, it is important to recognize that, due to the non-randomized and retrospective nature of the study design, definitive conclusions about causality cannot be drawn. Nevertheless, the observed associations indicate that comprehensive nursing, implemented in a multidisciplinary framework, may contribute to more favorable perioperative and recovery outcomes. Future prospective and controlled studies are warranted to validate these findings and further explore the causal mechanisms underlying the observed improvements.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

1. Conde V, Siebner HR. Brain damage by trauma. Handb Clin Neurol. 2020;168:39–49.

2. McShane EK, Sun BJ, Maggio PM, et al. Improving tracheostomy delivery for trauma and surgical critical care patients: timely trach initiative. BMJ Open Qual. 2022;11(2):e001589. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001589

3. Bertini P, Marabotti A, Paternoster G, et al. Early versus late tracheostomy for traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Anestesiol. 2023;89(5):455–467. doi:10.23736/S0375-9393.23.17176-8

4. Rabinstein AA, Cinotti R, Bösel J. Liberation from mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy practice in traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care. 2023;38(2):439–446. doi:10.1007/s12028-023-01693-6

5. Yang D, Feng R, Liu L. Effect of comprehensive nursing based on evidence-based nursing on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers in patients undergoing posterior orthopedic surgery. Medicine. 2023;102(38):e35100. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000035100

6. Liu J, Xun Z. Evaluation of the effect of comprehensive nursing in psychotherapy of patients with depression. Comput Math Methods Med. 2021;2021:2112523. doi:10.1155/2021/2112523

7. Ghneim M, Albrecht J, Brasel K, et al. Factors associated with receipt of intracranial pressure monitoring in older adults with traumatic brain injury. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2021;6(1):e000733. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2021-000733

8. An X, Du X, Yang B, et al. Prognostic impact of serum homocysteine-lowering therapy on patients with hemorrhagic stroke and its influence on national institutes of health stroke scale and China stroke scale scores. Altern Ther Health Med. 2024;30(1):381–385.

9. Wilson L, Boase K, Nelson LD, et al. A Manual for the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended Interview. J Neurotrauma. 2021;38(17):2435–2446. doi:10.1089/neu.2020.7527

10. Kahraman F, Yılmaz AS, Demir M, et al. APACHE II score predicts in-hospital mortality more accurately than inflammatory indices in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Kardiologiia. 2022;62(9):54–59. doi:10.18087/cardio.2022.9.n1979

11. Shafshak TS, Elnemr R. The visual analogue scale versus numerical rating scale in measuring pain severity and predicting disability in low back pain. J Clin Rheumatol. 2021;27(7):282–285. doi:10.1097/RHU.0000000000001320

12. Scarboro M, McQuillan KA. Traumatic brain injury update. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2021;32(1):29–50. doi:10.4037/aacnacc2021331

13. Giner J, Mesa Galán L, Yus Teruel S, et al. Traumatic brain injury in the new millennium: new population and new management. Neurologia. 2022;37(5):383–389. doi:10.1016/j.nrl.2019.03.012

14. Gelormini C, Caricato A. Tracheostomy in traumatic brain injury: selection and stratification. Minerva Anestesiol. 2023;89(5):374–376. doi:10.23736/S0375-9393.23.17380-9

15. Robba C, Galimberti S, Graziano F, et al. Tracheostomy practice and timing in traumatic brain-injured patients: a CENTER-TBI study. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(5):983–994. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-05935-5

16. Xu Y, Wang RY, Zhao YH. Effects of perioperative comprehensive nursing based on risk prevention for patients with intracranial aneurysm. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(4):e13761. doi:10.1111/ijcp.13761

17. Brenner MJ, Pandian V, Milliren CE, et al. Global tracheostomy collaborative: data-driven improvements in patient safety through multidisciplinary teamwork, standardisation, education, and patient partnership. Br J Anaesth. 2020;125(1):e104–e118. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2020.04.054

18. McGrath BA, Wallace S, Lynch J, et al. Improving tracheostomy care in the United Kingdom: results of a guided quality improvement programme in 20 diverse hospitals. Br J Anaesth. 2020;125(1):e119–e129. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2020.04.064

19. Mussa CC, Gomaa D, Rowley DD, Schmidt U, Ginier E, Strickland SL. AARC clinical practice guideline: management of adult patients with tracheostomy in the acute care setting. Respir Care. 2021;66(1):156–169. doi:10.4187/respcare.08206

20. Ninan A, Grubb LM, Brenner MJ, et al. Effectiveness of interprofessional tracheostomy teams: a systematic review. J Clin Nurs. 2023;32(19–20):6967–6986. doi:10.1111/jocn.16815

21. Selvakumar S, Chan K, Ngatuvai M, et al. Timing of tracheostomy in patients with severe traumatic brain injuries: the need for tailored practice management guidelines. Injury. 2022;53(8):2717–2724. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2022.06.031

22. Villemure-Poliquin N, Costerousse O, Lessard Bonaventure P, et al. Tracheostomy versus prolonged intubation in moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: a multicentre retrospective cohort study. Can J Anaesth. 2023;70(9):1516–1526. doi:10.1007/s12630-023-02539-7

23. Du K, Xu Y, Shen Y. Early or late tracheostomy in patients with traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(3):e335–e336. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004729

24. Xiang X, Chen Y, Dai L. Effect of perioperative comprehensive nursing intervention on the rehabilitation effect of radiofrequency ablation for patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2022;2022(1):6436073. doi:10.1155/2022/6436073

25. Tavares WM, Araujo de França S, Paiva WS, et al. Early tracheostomy versus late tracheostomy in severe traumatic brain injury or stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust Crit Care. 2023;36(6):1110–1116. doi:10.1016/j.aucc.2022.12.012