Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Hilar splenic lymph node metastasis is one of the risk factors for poor prognosis in patients with proximal gastric cancer. Laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymph node dissection (LSPSHLD) can effectively improve the survival benefits of patients at high risk of splenic hilar lymph node metastasis. However, LSPSHLD is still a challenging surgical difficulty in radical resection of proximal gastric cancer. Moreover, improper operation can easily lead to splenic vascular injury, spleen injury and pancreatic injury and other related complications, due to the deep anatomical location of the splenic hilar region and the intricate blood vessels.Therefore, in the prevention and treatment of LSPSHLD-related complications, we should first focus on prevention, clarify the indication of surgery, and select the benefit group of LSPSHLD individually, so as to avoid the risk caused by over-dissection. Meanwhile, during the perioperative period of LSPSHLD, it is necessary to improve the cognition of related risk factors, conduct standardized and accurate operations in good surgical field exposure and correct anatomical level to avoid surrounding tissues and organs injury, and master the surgical skills and effective measures to deal with related complications, so as to improve the surgical safety of LSPSHLD.
Humans ; Spleen/surgery* ; Lymphatic Metastasis/pathology* ; Stomach Neoplasms/pathology* ; Gastrectomy/adverse effects* ; Lymph Node Excision/adverse effects* ; Lymph Nodes/pathology* ; Laparoscopy/adverse effects* ; Retrospective Studies

Humans ; Herpesvirus 4, Human ; Epstein-Barr Virus Infections/complications* ; Cholangiocarcinoma/pathology* ; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell ; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic/pathology* ; Bile Duct Neoplasms/pathology*

Background/Aims: The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted the training of medical trainees internationally. The aim of this study was to assess the global impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy training from the perspective of endoscopy trainers and to identify strategies implemented to mitigate the impact on trainee education. Methods: Teaching faculty of gastroenterology (GI) training programs globally were invited to complete a 36-question web-based survey to report the characteristics of their training programs and the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of endoscopy training, including what factors decisions were based on. Results: The survey response rate was 52.6% (305 out of 580 individuals); 92.8% reported a negative impact on endoscopy training, with suspension of elective procedures (77.1%) being the most detrimental factor. Geographic variations were noted, with European programs reporting the lowest percentage of trainee participation in procedures. A higher proportion of trainees in the Americas were allowed to continue performing procedures, and trainers from the Americas reported receiving the greatest support for endoscopy teaching. Conclusions This study demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant negative impact on GI endoscopy training internationally, as reported by endoscopy trainers. Focus-optimizing endoscopy training and assessment of competencies are necessary to ensure adequate endoscopy training.

Background/Aims: The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted the training of medical trainees internationally. The aim of this study was to assess the global impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy training from the perspective of endoscopy trainers and to identify strategies implemented to mitigate the impact on trainee education. Methods: Teaching faculty of gastroenterology (GI) training programs globally were invited to complete a 36-question web-based survey to report the characteristics of their training programs and the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of endoscopy training, including what factors decisions were based on. Results: The survey response rate was 52.6% (305 out of 580 individuals); 92.8% reported a negative impact on endoscopy training, with suspension of elective procedures (77.1%) being the most detrimental factor. Geographic variations were noted, with European programs reporting the lowest percentage of trainee participation in procedures. A higher proportion of trainees in the Americas were allowed to continue performing procedures, and trainers from the Americas reported receiving the greatest support for endoscopy teaching. Conclusions This study demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant negative impact on GI endoscopy training internationally, as reported by endoscopy trainers. Focus-optimizing endoscopy training and assessment of competencies are necessary to ensure adequate endoscopy training.

Objective: To analyze the pathogenic surveillance programs and related factors on bacillary dysentery in Beijing, 2008-2017, to provide evidence for the practices of diagnosis, treatment and prevention of the disease. Methods: Analysis was conducted on surveillance data of bacillary dysentery, collected from the surveillance areas of national bacillary dysentery in Beijing. Shigella positive rate of stool samples were used as the gold standard while detection rate of Shigella, diagnostic accordance rate and resistance were computed on data from the surveillance programs. Chi-square test was used to compare the rates and unconditional logistic regression was used to analyze the related factors of Shigella infection. Results: Both the reported incidence rate on bacillary dysentery and detection rate of Shigella in diarrhea patients showed significantly decreasing trend, from 2008 to 2017. The accordance rate of bacillary dysentery was only 7.80% (111/1 423). Shigella sonnei was the most frequently isolated strain (73.95%, 159/215) followed by Shigella flexnery. Results from the multivariate logistic regression of Shigella positive rate revealed that among those patients who were routine test of stool positive vs. routine test of stool positive (OR=1.863, 95%CI: 1.402-2.475), onset from July to October vs. other months'time (OR=7.271, 95%CI: 4.514-11.709) temperature ≥38 ℃vs. temperature <38 ℃(OR=4.516, 95%CI: 3.369-6.053) and age from 6 to 59 years old vs. other ages (OR=1.617, 95%CI: 1.085-2.410), presenting higher positive detection rates of Shigella from the stool tests. The resistant rates on ampicillin and nalidixic acid were 97.57% (201/206) and 94.90% (186/196), both higher than on other antibiotics. The resistant rates on ciprofloxacin (16.33%, 32/196), ofloxacin (9.57%, 11/115) and on amoxilin (15.05%, 31/206) were relatively low. The resistant rate appeared higher on Shigella flexnery than on Shigella sonnei. The proportion of strains with resistance on 3 more drugs, was 30.00%(21/70). Conclusions: The diagnostic accordance rate of bacillary dysentery in Beijing was low, with severe resistance of Shigella. Our findings suggested that clinicians should take multiple factors into account in their practices about epidemiological history, clinical symptom and testing results for diarrhea patients.
Adolescent ; Adult ; Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use* ; Beijing/epidemiology* ; Child ; China/epidemiology* ; Dysentery, Bacillary/prevention & control* ; Feces/microbiology* ; Humans ; Middle Aged ; Population Surveillance/methods* ; Sentinel Surveillance ; Shigella/isolation & purification* ; Shigella flexneri/isolation & purification* ; Shigella sonnei/isolation & purification* ; Young Adult