MIS TLIF has similar good long-term clinical outcomes and high fusion rates of Open TLIF with the additional benefits of less initial postoperative pain, early rehabilitation, shorter hospitalization, and fewer complications.

Study design Prospective observational cohort study. Objective Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes of single-level open versus minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at 6 months and 2-year follow-up. Summary of background data There is recognition that more data are required to ascertain the benefits and risks of MIS vis-a-vis open TLIF. This study aims to report on one of the largest currently available series comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes of the two procedures with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Methods From January 2002 to March 2008, 144 singlelevel open and MIS TLIF were performed at our centre, with 72 patients in each group. Clinical outcomes were based on patient-reported outcome measures recorded at the Orthopaedic Diagnostic Centre by independent assessors before surgery, at 6 months and 2 years post-operatively. These were visual analogue scores (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), short form-36 (SF-36), North American Spine Society (NASS) scores for neurogenic symptoms, returning to full function, and patient rating of the overall result of surgery. Radiological fusion based on the Bridwell grading system was also assessed at 6 months and 2 years post-operatively by independent assessors. Results In terms of demographics, the two groups were similar in terms of patient sample size, age, gender, body loss and pain, earlier rehabilitation, and a shorter hospitalization.

MIS TLIF is comparable with open TLIF in terms of midterm clinical outcomes and fusion rates with the additional benefits of less initial postoperative pain, less blood loss, earlier rehabilitation, and shorter hospitalization.

Background and purpose Outcome measurement has been shown to improve performance in several fields of healthcare. This understanding has driven a growing interest in value-based healthcare, where value is defined as outcomes achieved per money spent. While low back pain (LBP) constitutes an enormous burden of disease, no universal set of metrics has yet been accepted to measure and compare outcomes. Here, we aim to define such a set.Patients and methods An international group of 22 specialists in several disciplines of spine care was assembled to review literature and select LBP outcome metrics through a 6-round modified Delphi process. The scope of the outcome set was degenerative lumbar conditions.Results Patient-reported metrics include numerical pain scales, lumbar-related function using the Oswestry disability index, health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, and questions assessing work status and analgesic use. Specific common and serious complications are included. Recommended follow-up intervals include 6, 12, and 24 months after initiating treatment, with optional follow-up at 3 months and 5 years. Metrics for risk stratification are selected based on pre-existing tools.Interpretation The outcome measures recommended here are structured around specific etiologies of LBP, span a patient’s entire cycle of care, and allow for risk adjustment. Thus, when implemented, this set can be expected to facilitate meaningful comparisons and ultimately provide a continuous feedback loop, enabling ongoing improvements in quality of care. Much work lies ahead in implementation, revision, and validation of this set, but it is an essential first step toward establishing a community of LBP providers focused on maximizing the value of the care we deliver.

The Singapore English and Chinese KOOS were well accepted and demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity in Asian patients with knee OA in Singapore.

Level III, retrospective comparative series.

Singapore English and Chinese OKS demonstrated good patient acceptability and psychometric properties (including construct validity) among multiethnic Asian patients with knee OA undergoing TKR.

Background Surgical site infection (SSI) ranges from 1.9% to 5.5% in most large series. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been postulated to reduce SSI rates. Questions/purposes (1) Is MIS associated with a lower incidence of SSI compared with open spinal surgery? (2) Are there other independent risk factors associated with SSI? (3) What bacteria are most common in spinal SSI? Methods Medical records of 2299 patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, laminectomy, or discectomy were analyzed and selected for a nested casecontrol analysis. Twenty-seven cases with SSI were matched with 162 control subjects without SSI stratified based on procedure performed within 28 days of the case's date of surgery. Patients were identified from an institutional database at a tertiary care hospital. MIS involved spinal procedures performed through a tubular retractor system. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.Results Patients undergoing open spinal surgery were 5.77 times more likely to develop SSI compared with MIS approaches (odds ratio [OR], 5.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-32.7; p = 0.048). Also, from the multivariate regression model, diabetes (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.3-17.0; p = 0.018), number of levels operated on (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.6-7.5; p = 0.001), and body mass index (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.3; p = 0.010) were predictive of an increased risk in SSI. Staphylococcus aureus was most frequently identified, being present in 12 of 21 (52.4%) patients in whom positive cultures were obtained. Four of the 12 patients had methicillin-resistant S aureus infection. Conclusions In our series, MIS has a lower incidence of SSI. The risk factors predictive of SSI should be further evaluated in well-designed prospective trials. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.