Background/Objectives: Syphilis, a re-emerging global public health issue, has shown increasing incidence over the past decade, particularly among key populations such as men who have sex with men (MSM), people living with HIV, and pregnant women. This narrative review aimed to synthesize global epidemiological trends of syphilis from 2015 to 2025, with a focus on surveillance gaps, regional disparities, and structural determinants. Methods: A broad narrative approach was used to collect and analyze epidemiological data from 2015 to 2025. The literature was retrieved from databases (PubMed, Scopus) and official reports from the WHO, CDC, and ECDC. Included materials span observational studies, surveillance reports, and modeling data relevant to global trends and public health responses. Results: Globally, syphilis incidence has increased, with notable surges in North America, Europe, and Asia. MSM remain disproportionately affected, while congenital syphilis is resurging even in high-income countries. Low- and middle-income countries report persistent burdens, especially among women of reproductive age, often exacerbated by limited screening and surveillance infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted syphilis-related services and further exacerbated underreporting, hindering timely detection and response efforts. Surveillance systems vary widely in their completeness and quality, which significantly hinders global data comparability and coordinated public health responses. Conclusions: Despite its curability, syphilis continues to spread due to fragmented prevention strategies, inequities in access to care, and insufficient surveillance. Strengthening diagnostic access, integrating prevention efforts into broader health systems, and addressing social determinants are essential. Improved surveillance, equitable access, and innovation—including diagnostics and potential vaccine research—are critical to controlling the global syphilis epidemic.

Background: The literature is conflicting regarding oncological outcome and morbidity associated to portal–mesenteric resection during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma (PHAC). Methods: A meta-analysis of studies comparing PD plus venous resection (PD+VR) and standard PD exclusively in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head was conducted. Results: Twenty-three cohort studies were identified, which included 6037 patients, of which 28.6% underwent PD+VR and 71.4% underwent standard PD. Patients who received PD+VR had lower 1-year overall survival (OS) (odds radio OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67–0.92, p = 0.003), 3-year OS (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59–0.87, p = 0.0006), and 5-year OS (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39–0.83, p = 0.003). Patients in the PD+VR group were more likely to have a larger tumor size (MD 3.87, 95% CI 1.75 to 5.99, p = 0.0003), positive lymph nodes (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.06–1.45, p = 0.007), and R1 resection (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.37–2.20, p < 0.0001). Thirty-day mortality was higher in the PD+VR group (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.28–2.91, p = 0.002), while no differences between groups were observed in rates of total complications (OR 1.07, 95% CI, 0.81–1.41, p = 0.65). Conclusions: Although PD+VR has significantly increased the resection rate in patients with PHAC, it has inferior survival outcomes and higher 30-day mortality when compared with standard PD, whereas postoperative morbidity rates are similar. Further research is needed to evaluate the role of PD+VR in the context of multimodality treatment of PHAC.

This narrative review examines the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and aesthetic outcomes of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) compared to standard excision for treating non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs). A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, covering studies published from 2000 to 2024. Key terms such as “Mohs Micrographic Surgery,” “non-melanoma skin cancer,” “recurrence rates,” “cost-effectiveness,” and “aesthetic outcomes” were utilized. Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed articles, clinical trials, and observational studies focusing on MMS and standard excision outcomes. Exclusion criteria included studies with inadequate data or those not published in English. The review highlights the superior oncologic outcomes of MMS, its cost-effectiveness over the long term, and comparable aesthetic results to standard excision principally. Methods: This narrative review was conducted following established guidelines for reporting narrative reviews. A systematic search strategy was employed across selected databases, with the last search conducted in May 2025. The search terms used were “Mohs Micrographic Surgery,” “non-melanoma skin cancer,” “recurrence rates,” “cost-effectiveness,” and “aesthetic outcomes.” Studies included were published between 2000 and 2024, in English, and provided data on the specified outcomes. Results: The majority of studies indicated that MMS offers superior recurrence-free survival rates compared to standard excision. Regarding cost-effectiveness, MMS was found to be more economical over the long term due to reduced recurrence rates and the need for fewer re-excisions. Aesthetic outcomes were comparable between MMS and standard excision, with both methods yielding satisfactory results. Discussion: The findings of this review support the use of MMS as a preferred treatment for high-risk NMSCs, particularly in cosmetically sensitive areas. While MMS may involve higher initial costs, its long-term cost-effectiveness and superior oncologic outcomes justify its use. The aesthetic outcomes associated with MMS are comparable to those of standard excision, making it a viable option for patients concerned with cosmetic results. Limitations: This review acknowledges several limitations, including the heterogeneity of study designs and potential selection biases inherent in the included studies. Additionally, the absence of randomized controlled trials comparing MMS and standard excision directly limits the strength of the conclusions drawn. Conclusions: This narrative review underscores the advantages of MMS in treating high-risk NMSCs, particularly in terms of recurrence rates and long-term cost-effectiveness. While both MMS and standard excision offer comparable aesthetic outcomes, the superior oncologic results of MMS make it a preferable option in certain clinical scenarios.