Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement and full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (FE-TLIF) are established minimally invasive spine techniques. Their integration has the potential to combine navigation accuracy with the muscle-preserving advantages of uniportal endoscopy. This technical note describes a hybrid approach using the Mazor X Stealth edition robotic system to enhance workflow, safety, and efficiency during FE-TLIF. A 74-year-old patient with metabolic syndrome presented with severe back and radicular leg pain that was refractory to conservative treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated bilateral lateral recess stenosis, disc height loss, and facet arthropathy at L4–5, with dynamic instability observed on flexion-extension radiographs. Preoperative computed tomography imaging was uploaded to the robotic system for trajectory planning. Following registration, the robotic arm guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement via Wiltse incisions. Uniportal endoscopic access enabled hemilaminotomy, facetectomy, discectomy, endplate preparation, and insertion of an expandable L4–5 interbody cage under direct visualization. Robotic guidance facilitated precise screw trajectory placement without repeated fluoroscopic localization, reduced intraoperative radiation exposure, and avoided muscle disruption associated with open approaches. Endoscopic visualization enabled controlled facet resection and preservation of neural elements during cage placement. Postoperative radiographs confirmed appropriate implant positioning. The combined workflow improved surgical ergonomics and minimized tissue trauma while maintaining fusion stability. Robotic-assisted FE-TLIF represents a safe and feasible hybrid minimally invasive surgery technique that enhances pedicle screw accuracy and complements endoscopic fusion. Despite a steep learning curve, this approach may reduce perioperative morbidity, improve procedural efficiency, and enhance postoperative recovery. Further comparative studies are required to evaluate long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Objective: Spinal stenosis and degenerative spinal disorders are increasingly prevalent and have a substantial impact on quality of life. Surgical decompression, performed using either open microscopic or endoscopic approaches, remains a cornerstone of management for these conditions. This study examines evolving trends in single-level lumbar spinal decompression procedures performed at a tertiary academic hospital in Singapore. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted involving 588 patients who underwent single-level spinal decompression between 2021 and 2024, including endoscopic spine surgery (ESS; n=364) and microdecompression (n=224). Primary outcome measures were changes in 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at 3 months, 6 months, and 2 years postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, reoperation rates, and operative time. Patient demographics, spinal level and pathology characteristics, surgical techniques, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Difference-in-differences (DID) analysis was used to compare outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: Both groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements in SF-36 and VAS scores. At 2 years, Short Form Health Survey physical function (SFPF) scores improved in the endoscopic group (mean difference [MD], 18.6; standard deviation [SD], 21.7; p=0.064) and in the open microscopic group (MD, 36.7; SD, 20.9; p=0.007), with a non-significant DID of -18.1 (p=0.155). No DID comparisons across SF-36 domains reached statistical significance. Mean operative time for endoscopic procedures decreased from 249 minutes in 2022 to 145 minutes in 2024, reflecting a procedural learning curve. Surgeons with higher endoscopic caseloads exhibited greater improvements in functional outcomes. Conclusion Both endoscopic and open microscopic decompression achieve comparable short- and long-term clinical outcomes. ESS provides similar effectiveness while being associated with shorter recovery periods and reduced hospital stay. Further research is warranted to identify factors contributing to incomplete symptom resolution or the need for revision surgery.

Objective: To develop and validate a novel scoring system for predicting the risk of uterine perforation during brachytherapy (BT) in cervical cancer patients and to stratify patients based on this score to guide the use of ultrasound guidance during BT. Methods: Fifty patients with uterine perforation during BT between January 2018 and December 2020 were included. Common reasons for perforation were identified and a scoring system was developed. This was then applied to a cohort of 50 patients without perforation. The 2 cohorts were compared using the χ 2 test. To validate the scoring system, all newly diagnosed patients who underwent BT in 2021 were scored, and analysed using χ 2 test and receiver operator characteristic curves. Results: The mean score in the test cohort was 10.16 (range=7–14) and 5.92 (range=5–8) for patients with and without perforation. In the validation cohort, the mean score was 6.9 (range=5–10) and 9.33 (range=7–11) for those with and without perforation. Patients with a score <8 were classified as low risk, while those with a score ≥8 were classified as high risk. Among the criteria evaluated for validation, response to external beam radiotherapy, uterine position, cervico-uterine angle (uterine flexion), identification of cervical os at BT assessment, and the total score were significant predictors, while previous history of perforation, uterine length, and additional uterine anomaly were not. Conclusion The novel scoring system is an effective predictor of perforation risk during BT. Implementing this during BT assessment can optimize the need for ultrasound guidance during the procedure.

Background: The medical curriculum is one of the most stressful academic curricula worldwide. Studies indicate that great levels of stress, that encompass academics to personal life, may be connected to a number of worrying statistics for the mental health of Philippine medical students. Objectives: To develop a validated stressor-coping style scale for students in a public medical school. Methods: The study employed a sequential mixed-methods design. An open-ended questionnaire was used to determine the common stressors and coping styles through convenience sampling. A scale was constructed from this data and was statistically tested for concurrent validity and reliability from a random sample. Results: Following thematic analysis, an initial six stressor domains and eleven coping mechanisms were identified. However, after item analysis and principal component analysis of responses, the scale was transformed to seven stressor domains and five coping mechanism domains. All of which are deemed internally consistent (α>0.6). Scores from the scale were also convergent with the scores of Brief COPE (r=0.5 to 0.9). Conclusions The developed stressor-coping style scale for medical students is a reliable and valid tool for Filipino medical students in a public medical school.
Students, Medical

BACKGROUND

The medical curriculum is one of the most stressful academic curricula worldwide. Studies indicate that great levels of stress, that encompass academics to personal life, may be connected to a number of worrying statistics for the mental health of Philippine medical students.

To develop a validated stressor-coping style scale for students in a public medical school.

The study employed a sequential mixed-methods design. An open-ended questionnaire was used to determine the common stressors and coping styles through convenience sampling. A scale was constructed from this data and was statistically tested for concurrent validity and reliability from a random sample.

Following thematic analysis, an initial six stressor domains and eleven coping mechanisms were identified. However, after item analysis and principal component analysis of responses, the scale was transformed to seven stressor domains and five coping mechanism domains. All of which are deemed internally consistent (α>0.6). Scores from the scale were also convergent with the scores of Brief COPE (r=0.5 to 0.9).

The developed stressor-coping style scale for medical students is a reliable and valid tool for Filipino medical students in a public medical school.

Methods: Patients diagnosed with cervical degenerative spondylolisthesis were identified from a hospital’s medical records. Demographic and surgical characteristics were collected through a structured query language search and manual chart review. Radiographic measurements were made on preoperative MRIs for all vertebral levels diagnosed with spondylolisthesis and adjacent undiagnosed levels between C3 and C6. The facet fluid index was calculated by dividing the facet fluid measurement by the width of the facet. Bivariate analysis was conducted to compare facet characteristics based on radiographic spondylolisthesis and spondylolisthesis stability. Results: We included 154 patients, for whom 149 levels were classified as having spondylolisthesis and 206 levels did not. The average facet fluid index was significantly higher in patients with spondylolisthesis (0.26±0.07 vs. 0.23±0.08, p <0.001). In addition, both fluid width and facet width were significantly larger in patients with spondylolisthesis (p <0.001 each). Cervical levels in the fusion construct demonstrated a greater facet fluid index and were more likely to have unstable spondylolisthesis than stable spondylolisthesis (p <0.001 each). Conclusions Facet fluid index is associated with cervical spondylolisthesis and an increased facet size and fluid width are associated with unstable spondylolisthesis. While cervical spondylolisthesis continues to be an inconclusive finding, vertebral levels with spondylolisthesis, especially the unstable ones, were more likely to be included in the fusion procedure than those without spondylolisthesis.

Objective: To develop and validate a novel scoring system for predicting the risk of uterine perforation during brachytherapy (BT) in cervical cancer patients and to stratify patients based on this score to guide the use of ultrasound guidance during BT. Methods: Fifty patients with uterine perforation during BT between January 2018 and December 2020 were included. Common reasons for perforation were identified and a scoring system was developed. This was then applied to a cohort of 50 patients without perforation. The 2 cohorts were compared using the χ 2 test. To validate the scoring system, all newly diagnosed patients who underwent BT in 2021 were scored, and analysed using χ 2 test and receiver operator characteristic curves. Results: The mean score in the test cohort was 10.16 (range=7–14) and 5.92 (range=5–8) for patients with and without perforation. In the validation cohort, the mean score was 6.9 (range=5–10) and 9.33 (range=7–11) for those with and without perforation. Patients with a score <8 were classified as low risk, while those with a score ≥8 were classified as high risk. Among the criteria evaluated for validation, response to external beam radiotherapy, uterine position, cervico-uterine angle (uterine flexion), identification of cervical os at BT assessment, and the total score were significant predictors, while previous history of perforation, uterine length, and additional uterine anomaly were not. Conclusion The novel scoring system is an effective predictor of perforation risk during BT. Implementing this during BT assessment can optimize the need for ultrasound guidance during the procedure.

Objective: To develop and validate a novel scoring system for predicting the risk of uterine perforation during brachytherapy (BT) in cervical cancer patients and to stratify patients based on this score to guide the use of ultrasound guidance during BT. Methods: Fifty patients with uterine perforation during BT between January 2018 and December 2020 were included. Common reasons for perforation were identified and a scoring system was developed. This was then applied to a cohort of 50 patients without perforation. The 2 cohorts were compared using the χ 2 test. To validate the scoring system, all newly diagnosed patients who underwent BT in 2021 were scored, and analysed using χ 2 test and receiver operator characteristic curves. Results: The mean score in the test cohort was 10.16 (range=7–14) and 5.92 (range=5–8) for patients with and without perforation. In the validation cohort, the mean score was 6.9 (range=5–10) and 9.33 (range=7–11) for those with and without perforation. Patients with a score <8 were classified as low risk, while those with a score ≥8 were classified as high risk. Among the criteria evaluated for validation, response to external beam radiotherapy, uterine position, cervico-uterine angle (uterine flexion), identification of cervical os at BT assessment, and the total score were significant predictors, while previous history of perforation, uterine length, and additional uterine anomaly were not. Conclusion The novel scoring system is an effective predictor of perforation risk during BT. Implementing this during BT assessment can optimize the need for ultrasound guidance during the procedure.

Methods: Patients undergoing posterior lumbar decompression (PLD) of ≤4 levels were divided into severe and non-severe central canal stenosis groups based on the Lee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) grading system. Patients without preoperative MRI or inadequate visualization on radiographs were excluded. Surgical characteristics, clinical outcomes, and sagittal measurements were compared. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the predictors of pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI–LL). Results: Of the 142 patients included, 39 had severe stenosis, and 103 had non-severe stenosis. The mean follow-up duration for the cohort was 4.72 months. Patients with severe stenosis were older, had higher comorbidity indices and levels decompressed, and longer lengths of stay and operative times (p <0.001). Although those with severe stenosis had lower lordosis, lower SS, and higher PI–LL mismatch preoperatively, no differences in Delta LL, SS, PT, or PI–LL were observed between the two groups (p >0.05). On multivariate regression, severe stenosis was a significant predictor of a lower preoperative LL (estimate=−5.243, p =0.045) and a higher preoperative PI–LL mismatch (estimate=6.192, p =0.039). No differences in surgical or clinical outcomes were observed (p >0.05). Conclusion Severe central lumbar stenosis was associated with greater spinopelvic mismatch preoperatively. Sagittal balance improved in both patients with severe and non-severe stenosis after PLD to a similar degree, with differences in sagittal parameters remaining after surgery. We also found no differences in postoperative outcomes associated with stenosis severity.

Methods: Patients undergoing primary, elective 1–3 level ACDF for radiculopathy at a single academic center between 2015 and 2021 were identified retrospectively. Cervical FS was evaluated using axial T2-weighted MRI images via a validated grading scale. The maximum degree of stenosis was used for multilevel disease. Motor symptoms were classified using encounters at their final preoperative and first postoperative visits, with examinations ≤3/5 indicating weakness. PROMs were obtained preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up. Bivariate analysis was used to compare outcomes based on stenosis severity, followed by multivariable analysis. Results: This study included 354 patients, 157 with moderate stenosis and 197 with severe stenosis. Overall, 58 patients (16.4%) presented with upper extremity weakness ≤3/5. A similar number of patients in both groups presented with baseline motor weakness (13.5% vs. 16.55, p =0.431). Postoperatively, 97.1% and 87.0% of patients with severe and moderate FS, respectively, experienced full motor recovery (p =0.134). At 1-year, patients with severe neuroforaminal stenosis presented with significantly worse 12-item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score (PCS-12) (33.3 vs. 37.3, p =0.049) but demonstrated a greater magnitude of improvement (Δ PCS-12: 5.43 vs. 0.87, p =0.048). Worse stenosis was independently associated with greater ΔPCS-12 at 1-year (β =5.59, p =0.022). Conclusions Patients with severe FS presented with worse preoperative physical health. While ACDF improved outcomes and conferred similar motor recovery in all patients, those with severe FS reported much better improvement in physical function.