Retrospective study.
 
  The authors aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) with those of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) using a microscope.
 
  Lumbar spinal fusion has been widely performed for various lumbar spinal pathologies. Minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion using a tubular retractor under a microscope is a method of achieving fusion while reducing soft tissue injury. Recently, several studies have reported minimally invasive techniques for lumbar discectomy, decompression, and interbody fusion using biportal endoscopic spinal surgery.
 
  This retrospective study included 87 patients who underwent single-level TLIF for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis between 2015 and 2018. Thirty-two and 55 patients underwent BE-TLIF (group A) and MI-TLIF (group B), respectively. Visual Analogue Scale scores of the back and leg and Oswestry Disability Index were collected perioperatively.Fve or isthmic spondylolisthesis with superior clinical results in the early postoperative period.
  This is a retrospective cohort study.
 
  The objective of this study was to further elucidate the relationship between pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and surgical outcomes in patients undergoing short segment lumbar fusions for degenerative lumbar disease.
 
  There are few studies examining the relationship between spinopelvic parameters and patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs) in short segment lumbar degenerative disease.
 
  A retrospective review was conducted at single academic institution. Patients undergoing 1- or 2-level lumbar fusion were retrospectively identified and separated into 2 groups based on postoperative PI-LL mismatch ≤10 degrees (NM) or PI-LL mismatch >10 degrees (M). Outcomes including the Physical Component Score (PCS)-12, Mental Component Score (MCS)-12, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back and leg scores were analyzed. Absolute PROM scores, the recovery ratio and the percentage of patients achieving minimum clinically important difference between groups were compared and a multiple linear regression analysis was performed.
 
  A total of 306 patients were included, with 59 patients in the NM group and 247 patients in the M group. Patients in the M group started with a higher degree of PI-LL mismatch compared with the NM group (22.2 vs. 7.6 degrees, P<0.001) and this difference increased postoperatively (24.7 vs. 2.5 degrees, P<0.001). There were no differences between the 2 groups in terms of baseline, postoperative, or Δ outcome scores (P>0.05). In addition, having a PI-LL mismatch was not found to be an independent predictor of any PROM on multivariate analysis (P>0.05).
 
  The findings in this study show that even though patients in the M group had a higher degree of mismatch preoperatively and postoperatively, there was no difference in PROMs.
 
  Level III.
 Level III.
  This study carried out a retrospective review of prospectively collected registry data.
 
  This study aimed to determine whether (1) utilization rates; (2) demographics and preoperative statuses; and (3) clinical outcomes differ among Chinese, Malays, and Indians undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).
 
  There is a marked racial disparity in spine surgery outcomes between white and African American patients. Comparative studies of ethnicity have mostly been carried out in American populations, with an underrepresentation of Asian ethnic groups. It is unclear whether these disparities exist among Chinese, Malays, and Indians.
 
  A prospectively maintained registry was reviewed for 753 patients who underwent primary MIS-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis between 2006 and 2013. The cohort was stratified by race. Comparisons of demographics, functional outcomes, and patient satisfaction were performed preoperatively and 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 2 years postope in demographics, preoperative statuses, and postoperative outcomes between races should be considered when interpreting outcome studies of lumbar spine surgery in Asian populations.
 
  Level III-nonrandomized cohort study.
 Level III-nonrandomized cohort study.Before conducting a scientific study, a power analysis is performed to determine the sample size required to test an effect within allowable probabilities of Type I error (α) or Type II error (β). The power of a study is related to Type II error by 1-β. Most scientific studies set α=0.05 and power=0.80 as minimums.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/ON-01910.html  More conservative study designs will decrease α or increase power, which will require a larger sample size. The third and final parameter required for a power analysis is the effect size (ES). ES is a measure of the strength of the observation in the outcome of interest (ie, the dependent variable). ES must be estimated from pilot studies or published values. A small ES will require a larger sample size than a large ES. It is possible to detect statistically significant findings even for very small ES, if the sample size is sufficiently large. Therefore, it is also essential to evaluate whether ES is sufficiently large to be clinically meaningful.
  Lumbar fusion surgeries in degenerative spinal conditions can be invasive and may challenge the normal biomechanical spine and joint function. Frequently, patients require postoperative rehabilitation management. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to determine if there is an advantage to using a postoperative lumbar orthosis with regard to postoperative function and surgical healing.
 
  Articles in the English language were searched in electronic databases including PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov from January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2019.
 
  Studies were included if they were described as being a prospective randomized trial, utilized a common pain score determinant, reported complications postoperatively, analyzed disability, and were published within a 15-year period. After review of 218 citations by 2 authors, 4 studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria.
 
  Pain scores (Visual Analogue Scale/Dallas Pain Questionnaire), disability (Oswestry Disability Index, Short Form-36, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), postoperative complications and fusion rate outcomes were collected.