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.

Despite the worldwide acceptance of acetaminophen (APAP) as a necessary medicine in pediatrics, evidence that early exposure to APAP causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and children has been mounting for over a decade. The evidence is diverse and includes extensive work with laboratory animals, otherwise unexplained associations, factors associated with APAP metabolism, and limited studies in humans. Although the evidence has reached an overwhelming level and was recently reviewed in detail, controversy persists. This narrative review evaluates some of that controversy. Evidence from the pre- and postpartum periods was considered to avoid controversy raised by consideration of only limited evidence of risks during the prepartum period. Among other issues, the association between APAP use and the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders was considered. A systematic review revealed that the use of APAP in the pediatric population was never tracked carefully; however, historical events that affected its use were documented and are sufficient to establish apparent correlations with changes in the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders. Moreover, problems with the exclusive reliance on results of meta-analyses of large datasets with limited time frames of drug exposure were reviewed. Furthermore, the evidence of why some children are susceptible to APAPinduced neurodevelopmental injuries was examined. We concluded that available evidence demonstrates that early exposure to APAP causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and small children.

Despite the worldwide acceptance of acetaminophen (APAP) as a necessary medicine in pediatrics, evidence that early exposure to APAP causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and children has been mounting for over a decade. The evidence is diverse and includes extensive work with laboratory animals, otherwise unexplained associations, factors associated with APAP metabolism, and limited studies in humans. Although the evidence has reached an overwhelming level and was recently reviewed in detail, controversy persists. This narrative review evaluates some of that controversy. Evidence from the pre- and postpartum periods was considered to avoid controversy raised by consideration of only limited evidence of risks during the prepartum period. Among other issues, the association between APAP use and the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders was considered. A systematic review revealed that the use of APAP in the pediatric population was never tracked carefully; however, historical events that affected its use were documented and are sufficient to establish apparent correlations with changes in the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders. Moreover, problems with the exclusive reliance on results of meta-analyses of large datasets with limited time frames of drug exposure were reviewed. Furthermore, the evidence of why some children are susceptible to APAPinduced neurodevelopmental injuries was examined. We concluded that available evidence demonstrates that early exposure to APAP causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and small children.

Despite the worldwide acceptance of acetaminophen (APAP) as a necessary medicine in pediatrics, evidence that early exposure to APAP causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and children has been mounting for over a decade. The evidence is diverse and includes extensive work with laboratory animals, otherwise unexplained associations, factors associated with APAP metabolism, and limited studies in humans. Although the evidence has reached an overwhelming level and was recently reviewed in detail, controversy persists. This narrative review evaluates some of that controversy. Evidence from the pre- and postpartum periods was considered to avoid controversy raised by consideration of only limited evidence of risks during the prepartum period. Among other issues, the association between APAP use and the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders was considered. A systematic review revealed that the use of APAP in the pediatric population was never tracked carefully; however, historical events that affected its use were documented and are sufficient to establish apparent correlations with changes in the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders. Moreover, problems with the exclusive reliance on results of meta-analyses of large datasets with limited time frames of drug exposure were reviewed. Furthermore, the evidence of why some children are susceptible to APAPinduced neurodevelopmental injuries was examined. We concluded that available evidence demonstrates that early exposure to APAP causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and small children.

Despite the worldwide acceptance of acetaminophen (APAP) as a necessary medicine in pediatrics, evidence that early exposure to APAP causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and children has been mounting for over a decade. The evidence is diverse and includes extensive work with laboratory animals, otherwise unexplained associations, factors associated with APAP metabolism, and limited studies in humans. Although the evidence has reached an overwhelming level and was recently reviewed in detail, controversy persists. This narrative review evaluates some of that controversy. Evidence from the pre- and postpartum periods was considered to avoid controversy raised by consideration of only limited evidence of risks during the prepartum period. Among other issues, the association between APAP use and the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders was considered. A systematic review revealed that the use of APAP in the pediatric population was never tracked carefully; however, historical events that affected its use were documented and are sufficient to establish apparent correlations with changes in the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders. Moreover, problems with the exclusive reliance on results of meta-analyses of large datasets with limited time frames of drug exposure were reviewed. Furthermore, the evidence of why some children are susceptible to APAPinduced neurodevelopmental injuries was examined. We concluded that available evidence demonstrates that early exposure to APAP causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and small children.

Biliary fibrosis (BF) is the result of pathological repair of bile tract injury, characterized by thickening and sclerosis of the bile duct wall and progressive stricture of the lumen, which may ultimately lead to serious adverse outcomes such as biliary obstruction, biliary cirrhosis, liver failure, and hepatobiliary malignancies. Current research describes BF as a pathological feature of certain bile tract diseases, lacking a systematic summary of its etiology, pathophysiology, molecular mechanisms, and treatment. BF is a common but easily neglected disease state in biliary system, which may promote the development and progression of hepatobiliary diseases through abnormal repair mechanism after pathological biliary tract injury. Based on the latest research progress from both domestic and international perspectives, the authors review the concept, clinical manifestation, etiology, pathogenesis, and therapeutic strategies of BF to provide a reference for clinical physicians.