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.

Purpose: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for radical cystectomy aims to facilitate postoperative recovery and hasten a return to normal daily activities. This study aims to report on the perioperative outcomes of implementation of an ERAS protocol at a single Australian institution. Materials and Methods: We identified 73 patients with pT1–T4 bladder cancer who underwent open radical cystectomy at Western Health, Victoria between June 2016 and August 2021. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed. Perioperative outcomes included length of hospital stay, nasogastric tube requirement and duration of postoperative ileus. Results: The median age was 74 years (interquartile range [IQR] 66–78) for the ERAS group and 70 years (IQR 65–78) for the preERAS group patients. All patients in each group underwent ileal conduit formation. The median length of hospital stay was 7.0 days (IQR 7.0–9.3) for the ERAS group and 12.0 days (IQR 8.0–16.0) for the pre-ERAS group (p=0.003). Within the ERAS group, 25.0% had a postoperative ileus, and 25.0% had a nasogastric tube inserted, compared with 64.9% (p=0.001) and 45.9% (p=0.063) respectively within pre-ERAS group. The median bowel function recovery time, defined as duration from surgery to first bowel action, was 5.0 days (IQR 4.0–7.0) in the ERAS group and 7.5 days (IQR 5.0–8.5) in the pre-ERAS group (p=0.016). Conclusions Implementation of an ERAS protocol is associated with a reduction in hospital length of stay, postoperative ileus and bowel function recovery time.

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) function as potent mediators of intercellular communication for many in vivo processes, contributing to both health and disease related conditions. Given their biological origins and diverse functionality from correspondingly unique “cargo” compositions, both endogenous and modified EVs are garnering attention as promising therapeutic modalities and vehicles for targeted therapeutic delivery applications. Their diversity in composition, however, has revealed a significant need for more comprehensive analytical-based characterization methods, and manufacturing processes that are consistent and scalable. In this review, we explore the dynamic landscape of EV research and development efforts, ranging from novel isolation approaches, to their analytical assessment through novel characterization techniques, and to their production by industrial-scale manufacturing process considerations. Expanding the horizon of these topics to EVs for in-human applications, we underscore the need for stringent development and adherence to Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) guidelines. Wherein, the intricate interplay of raw materials, production in bioreactors, and isolation practices, along with analytical assessments compliant with the Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles (MISEV) guidelines, in conjunction with reference standard materials, collectively pave the way for standardized and consistent GMP production processes.

BACKGROUND: Current replacement procedures for stenosis or occluded arteries using prosthetic grafts have serious limitations in clinical applications, particularly, endothelialization of the luminal surface is a long-standing unresolved problem.METHOD: We produced a cell-based hybrid vascular graft using a bioink engulfing adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (ADSCs) and a 3D bioprinting process lining the ADSCs on the luminal surface of GORE-Tex grafts. The hybrid graft was implanted as an interposition conduit to replace a 3-cm-long segment of the infrarenal abdominal aorta in Rhesus monkeys. RESULTS: Complete endothelium layer and smooth muscle layer were fully developed within 21 days post-implantation, along with normalized collagen deposition and crosslinking in the regenerated vasculature in all monkeys. The regenerated blood vessels showed normal functionality for the longest observation of more than 1650 days. The same procedure was also conducted in miniature pigs for the interposition replacement of a 10-cm-long right iliac artery and showed the same long-term effective and safe outcome. CONCLUSION This cell-based vascular graft is ready to undergo clinical trials for human patients.

The long-term survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) in Chinese prostate cancer (PCa) patients are poorly understood. We conducted a single-center, retrospective analysis of patients undergoing RP to study the prognostic value of pathological and surgical information. From April 1998 to February 2022, 782 patients undergoing RP at Queen Mary Hospital of The University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong, China) were included in our study. Multivariable Cox regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier analysis with stratification were performed. The 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year overall survival (OS) rates were 96.6%, 86.8%, and 70.6%, respectively, while the 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year PCa-specific survival (PSS) rates were 99.7%, 98.6%, and 97.8%, respectively. Surgical International Society of Urological Pathology PCa grades (ISUP Grade Group) ≥4 was significantly associated with poorer PSS (hazard ratio [HR] = 8.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.42-51.25, P = 0.02). Pathological T3 stage was not significantly associated with PSS or OS in our cohort. Lymph node invasion and extracapsular extension might be associated with worse PSS (HR = 20.30, 95% CI: 1.22-336.38, P = 0.04; and HR = 7.29, 95% CI: 1.22-43.64, P = 0.03, respectively). Different surgical approaches (open, laparoscopic, or robotic-assisted) had similar outcomes in terms of PSS and OS. In conclusion, we report the longest timespan follow-up of Chinese PCa patients after RP with different approaches.
Male ; Humans ; Retrospective Studies ; Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology* ; Prostate/pathology* ; Prostatectomy ; Prognosis ; Neoplasm Grading

Humans ; Herpesvirus 4, Human ; Epstein-Barr Virus Infections/complications* ; Multiple Myeloma/complications* ; Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse/pathology*