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.

Objective: To investigate the clinicopathological features and molecular genetics of diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) with concurrent or secondary to nodal T-follicular helper cell lymphoma, angioimmunoblastic-type (nTFHL-AI). Methods: The clinicopathological features and molecular genetics of DLBCL associated with nTFHL-AI diagnosed between January 2015 and October 2022 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University were analyzed using histology, immunohistochemistry, PCR, EBV-encoded RNA in situ hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Clinical information was collected and analyzed. Results: A total of 6 cases including 3 nTFHL-AI with secondary DLBCL and 3 composite lymphomas were reviewed. There were 4 male and 2 female patients, whose ages ranged from 40 to 74 years (median 57 years). All patients presented with nodal lesions at an advanced Ann Arbor stage Ⅲ/Ⅳ (6/6). Bone marrow involvement was detected in 4 patients. All cases showed typical histologic and immunophenotypic characteristics of nTFHL-AI. Among them, 5 cases of DLBCL with concurrent nTFHL-AI exhibited numerous large atypical lymphoid cells and the tumor cells were CD20 and CD79α positive. The only case of DLBCL secondary to nTFHL-AI showed plasma cell differentiation and reduced expression of CD20. All of cases were activated B-cell (ABC)/non-germinal center B-cell (non-GCB) subtype. Three of the 6 cases were EBV positive with>100 positive cells/high power field, meeting the diagnostic criteria of EBV⁺DLBCL. The expression of MYC and CD30 protein in the DLBCL region was higher than that in the nTFHL-AI region (n=5). C-MYC, bcl-6 and bcl-2 translocations were not detected in the 4 cases that were subject to FISH. Four of the 6 patients received chemotherapy after diagnosis. For the DLBCL cases of nTFHL-AI with secondary DLBCL, the interval was between 2-20 months. During the follow-up period ranging from 3-29 months, 3 of the 6 patients died of the disease. Conclusions: DLBCL associated with nTFHL-AI is very rare. The expansion of EBV-infected B cells in nTFHL-AI may progress to secondary EBV⁺DLBCL. However, EBV-negative cases have also been reported, suggesting possible other mechanisms. The up-regulation of MYC expression in these cases suggests a possible role in B-cell lymphomagenesis. Clinicians should be aware that another biopsy is still necessary to rule out concurrent or secondary DLBCL when nodal and extranodal lesions are noted after nTFHL-AI treatment.
Female ; Male ; Humans ; In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence ; Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse ; B-Lymphocytes ; Biopsy ; T-Lymphocytes, Helper-Inducer

Pregnancy ; Female ; Humans ; Mucolipidoses ; Placenta

Humans ; Sarcoma, Small Cell/pathology* ; Sarcoma/pathology* ; Oncogene Proteins, Fusion ; Biomarkers, Tumor ; Soft Tissue Neoplasms/genetics*

Objective: To investigate the effect of sugammadex on postoperative nausea and vomiting(PONV) after intracranial aneurysm surgery. Methods: Data from intracranial aneurysms patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and underwent interventional surgery in the Department of Neurosurgery, Peking University International Hospital from January 2020 to March 2021 were prospectively included. According to the random number table method, the patients were divided by 1∶1 into the neostigmine+atropine group (group N) and the sugammadex group (group S). Use an acceleration muscle relaxation monitor for muscle relaxation monitoring, and administer neostigmine+atropine and sugammadex to block residual muscle relaxation drugs after surgery. The incidence rates of PONV and severity, the appearance of anesthesia, and the correlation between PONV and postoperative complications were recorded in both groups during five periods after surgery: 0-0.5 hours (T1),>0.5-2.0 hours(T2),>2.0-6.0 hours (T3),>6.0-12.0 hours (T4) and >12.0-24.0 hours (T5). Group comparisons of quantitative data were performed by the independent sample t-test, and categorical data was performed by the χ² or rank sum test. Results: A total of 66 patients were included in the study, including 37 males and 29 female, aged (59.3±15.4) years (range: 18 to 77 years). The incidence rates of PONV of 33 patients in group S at different time periods of T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 after surgery were respectively 27.3%(9/33),30.3%(10/33),12.1%(4/33),3.0%(1/33),0(0/33),and the incidence rates of PONV of 33 patients in the group N at different time periods of T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 after surgery were respectively 36.4%(12/33),36.4%(12/33),33.3%(11/33),6.1%(2/33) and 0(0/33).The incidence of PONV was lower in the group S only in the T3 period after reversal than in the group N (χ²=4.227, P=0.040).However, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of PONV between the two groups of patients in other periods (all P>0.05). The recovery time for spontaneous breathing in patients in group S was (7.7±1.4) minutes, the extubation time was (12.4±5.3) minutes, and the safe exit time for anesthesia recovery was (12.3±3.4) minutes; the N groups were (13.9±2.0) minutes, (18.2±6.0) minutes, and (18.6±5.2) minutes, respectively; three time periods in group S were shorter than those in group N, and the differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). The results regarding the occurrence of complications in patients with different levels of PONV at different time intervals after surgery in the two groups were as follows: in the T3 time period of group N, a significant difference was observed only in the occurrence of postoperative complications among patients with different levels of PONV (χ²=24.786, P<0.01). However, in the T4 time period, significant differences were found in the occurrence of postoperative complications among both the same level and different level PONV patients (χ²=15.435, 15.435, both P<0.01). Significant differences were also observed in the occurrence of postoperative complications among the same level and different level PONV patients in both the T3 and T4 time periods of group S (all P<0.01). Conclusion: Sugammadex can be used to reverse muscle relaxation in patients undergoing intracranial aneurysm intervention surgery,and it does not have a significant impact on the incidence of PONV, it can also optimize the quality of anesthesia recovery and reduce the incidence of complications after intracranial aneurysm embolization surgery.
Male ; Humans ; Female ; Sugammadex ; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting/chemically induced* ; Neostigmine/adverse effects* ; Intracranial Aneurysm/surgery* ; gamma-Cyclodextrins/adverse effects* ; Atropine

Adult ; Cities ; Humans ; Middle Aged ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Quality of Life ; Risk Factors ; Silicosis