Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of endoscopic posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PTLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 56 patients with single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases treated at Xiuzhou District People's Hospital between September 2020 and March 2023. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical approach: the Endo-PTLIF group (24 cases, 11 males and 13 females; mean age: 56.5±8.4 years, range: 43-72 years) and the MIS-TLIF group (32 cases, 10 males and 22 females; mean age: 54.5±10.4 years, range: 37-73 years). Perioperative parameters, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), lumbar lordosis (LL), disc height (DH), and dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) were compared between the two groups.Results:No significant differences were observed between the two groups in baseline characteristics, preoperative VAS, ODI, LL, DH, or DSCA ( P>0.05). However, the operative time in the Endo-PTLIF group (173.9±12.3 minutes) was significantly longer than in the MIS-TLIF group (136.5±19.5 minutes, P<0.05). Similarly, the Endo-PTLIF group required more fluoroscopy exposures (15.9±1.8) than the MIS-TLIF group (13.0±1.6, P<0.05). In contrast, intraoperative blood loss in the Endo-PTLIF group (68.9± 12.9 ml) was significantly lower than in the MIS-TLIF group (126.7±35.4 ml, P<0.05). Additionally, the Endo-PTLIF group had a shorter hospital stay [7.00 (6.25, 7.75) days] compared to the MIS-TLIF group [10.00 (9.25, 11.00) days, P<0.05]. At one week and one month postoperatively, the Endo-PTLIF group had significantly lower back pain VAS scores [2.00 (2.00, 3.00) and 2.00 (2.00, 2.00), respectively] and a lower ODI (25.83%±3.83%) compared to the MIS-TLIF group [3.00 (2.25, 4.00), 2.50 (2.00, 3.00), and 30.09%±4.02%, respectively; P<0.05]. Beyond one month postoperatively, there were no significant differences in leg pain VAS scores between the groups, and back pain VAS and ODI showed no significant differences after six months ( P>0.05). At the final follow-up, the excellent and good rates, according to MacNab criteria, were 95.8% in the Endo-PTLIF group and 93.8% in the MIS-TLIF group, with no significant difference ( P>0.05). At 12 months postoperatively, both groups showed significant improvements in LL, DH, and DSCA compared to preoperative values ( P<0.05), but there were no significant differences between the two groups ( P>0.05). The fusion rates were 96% in the Endo-PTLIF group and 94% in the MIS-TLIF group, with no significant difference ( P>0.05). Complications included one case of dural tear in the Endo-PTLIF group, and one case of dural tear and one case of incision infection in the MIS-TLIF group. Conclusion:Endo-PTLIF achieves comparable clinical efficacy to MIS-TLIF in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases, with the added advantages of reduced intraoperative blood loss and faster postoperative recovery.

Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of endoscopic posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PTLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 56 patients with single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases treated at Xiuzhou District People's Hospital between September 2020 and March 2023. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical approach: the Endo-PTLIF group (24 cases, 11 males and 13 females; mean age: 56.5±8.4 years, range: 43-72 years) and the MIS-TLIF group (32 cases, 10 males and 22 females; mean age: 54.5±10.4 years, range: 37-73 years). Perioperative parameters, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), lumbar lordosis (LL), disc height (DH), and dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) were compared between the two groups.Results:No significant differences were observed between the two groups in baseline characteristics, preoperative VAS, ODI, LL, DH, or DSCA ( P>0.05). However, the operative time in the Endo-PTLIF group (173.9±12.3 minutes) was significantly longer than in the MIS-TLIF group (136.5±19.5 minutes, P<0.05). Similarly, the Endo-PTLIF group required more fluoroscopy exposures (15.9±1.8) than the MIS-TLIF group (13.0±1.6, P<0.05). In contrast, intraoperative blood loss in the Endo-PTLIF group (68.9± 12.9 ml) was significantly lower than in the MIS-TLIF group (126.7±35.4 ml, P<0.05). Additionally, the Endo-PTLIF group had a shorter hospital stay [7.00 (6.25, 7.75) days] compared to the MIS-TLIF group [10.00 (9.25, 11.00) days, P<0.05]. At one week and one month postoperatively, the Endo-PTLIF group had significantly lower back pain VAS scores [2.00 (2.00, 3.00) and 2.00 (2.00, 2.00), respectively] and a lower ODI (25.83%±3.83%) compared to the MIS-TLIF group [3.00 (2.25, 4.00), 2.50 (2.00, 3.00), and 30.09%±4.02%, respectively; P<0.05]. Beyond one month postoperatively, there were no significant differences in leg pain VAS scores between the groups, and back pain VAS and ODI showed no significant differences after six months ( P>0.05). At the final follow-up, the excellent and good rates, according to MacNab criteria, were 95.8% in the Endo-PTLIF group and 93.8% in the MIS-TLIF group, with no significant difference ( P>0.05). At 12 months postoperatively, both groups showed significant improvements in LL, DH, and DSCA compared to preoperative values ( P<0.05), but there were no significant differences between the two groups ( P>0.05). The fusion rates were 96% in the Endo-PTLIF group and 94% in the MIS-TLIF group, with no significant difference ( P>0.05). Complications included one case of dural tear in the Endo-PTLIF group, and one case of dural tear and one case of incision infection in the MIS-TLIF group. Conclusion:Endo-PTLIF achieves comparable clinical efficacy to MIS-TLIF in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases, with the added advantages of reduced intraoperative blood loss and faster postoperative recovery.

Traumatic supraorbital fissure syndrome (TSOFS) is a symptom complex caused by nerve entrapment in the supraorbital fissure after skull base trauma. If the compressed cranial nerve in the supraorbital fissure is not decompressed surgically, ptosis, diplopia and eye movement disorder may exist for a long time and seriously affect the patients′ quality of life. Since its overall incidence is not high, it is not familiarized with the majority of neurosurgeons and some TSOFS may be complicated with skull base vascular injury. If the supraorbital fissure surgery is performed without treatment of vascular injury, it may cause massive hemorrhage, and disability and even life-threatening in severe cases. At present, there is no consensus or guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of TSOFS that can be referred to both domestically and internationally. To improve the understanding of TSOFS among clinical physicians and establish standardized diagnosis and treatment plans, the Skull Base Trauma Group of the Neurorepair Professional Committee of the Chinese Medical Doctor Association, Neurotrauma Group of the Neurosurgery Branch of the Chinese Medical Association, Neurotrauma Group of the Traumatology Branch of the Chinese Medical Association, and Editorial Committee of Chinese Journal of Trauma organized relevant experts to formulate Chinese expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic supraorbital fissure syndrome ( version 2024) based on evidence of evidence-based medicine and clinical experience of diagnosis and treatment. This consensus puts forward 12 recommendations on the diagnosis, classification, treatment, efficacy evaluation and follow-up of TSOFS, aiming to provide references for neurosurgeons from hospitals of all levels to standardize the diagnosis and treatment of TSOFS.

Objective:Based on the relevance risk analysis of medical equipment,to formulate process management strategies to improve the clinical operation efficiency of medical equipment.Methods:The risk matrix was evaluated from the perspectives of subject,quality,environment,system and diagnosis and treatment perspective,the comprehensive evaluation model of relevance risk was established,and multiple process management countermeasures were formulated.400 sets of medical equipment in clinical use in Shanghai Eighth People's Hospital from April 2021 to March 2022 were selected and divided into the control group and the observation group by the digital table method,with 200 sets in each group.The control group adopted the individualized risk analysis method for process management,and the observation group adopted the relevance risk analysis method for process management.The risk level and operation benefits of the two groups of medical equipment were compared and analyzed.Results:The high risk rates of medical imaging diagnostic and auxiliary equipment,surgical treatment equipment,life support and first aid equipment,extracorporeal circulation and blood processing equipment,health monitoring and rehabilitation equipment in the observation group were 17.39%(4/23),14.58%(7/28),12.24%(6/49),5.55%(1/18)and5.06%(5/62),respectively,which were lower than those in the control group,the difference was statistically significant(x2=4.132,4.009,6.275,4.833,4.859,P<0.05).The scores of cost benefit,social benefit,diagnosis and treatment benefit and development benefit of medical equipment in the observation group were(91.37±6.15)points,(92.78±3.80)points,(95.25±2.09)points and(90.51±3.82)points,respectively,which were higher than those in the control group,the difference was statistically significant(t=2.392,3.877,4.841,2.504,P<0.05).Conclusion:The relevance risk analysis method can reduce the probability and hazard degree of medical equipment safety risks,improve the clinical operation efficiency of medical equipment,and the process management strategy is in line with the actual needs of the medical equipment lifecycle management.

Objective To analyze the relationship between planning factors of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and gamma index and investigate the effect of each parameter upon the γ passing rate of IMRT.Methods Gamma analysis was performed using 3％/3 mm acceptance criteria for 457 IMRT beams with different planning factors.During multi-factor ANOVA analysis of planning factors and gamma passing rate,the control variables primarily included the minimum segment area,minimum number of monitor unit (MU),number of segment,segment conversation,and the spatial resolution in the measured dose distribution.Results The percentage of pixels with passingγsignificantly differed under different minimum segment area,segment conversation and the spatial resolution in the measured dose distribution (all P＜ 0.05).No significant correlation was observed between the passing rate and the minimum number of MU and the number of segment (P＞ 0.05).Conclusions According to the actual situation of the equipment,the minimum segment area should be determined during IMRT planning.Direct machine parameter optimization should be performed.Appropriate resolution of the plane dose images can be chosen according to the minimum detector interval of dose matrix device,