66 results on '"Singh, Sumedha"'
Search Results
52. S3226 IBD and Pregnancy: What’s Out There? An Analysis of Online Patient Resources
- Author
-
Dave, Jenny, primary, Naik, Katrina, additional, Chawla, Karan, additional, Singh, Sumedha, additional, Adhatamsoontra, Praphopphat, additional, and Borum, Marie L., additional
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
53. Expression-Based Cell Lineage Analysis inDrosophilaThrough a Course-Based Research Experience for Early Undergraduates
- Author
-
Olson, John M, primary, Evans, Cory J, additional, Ngo, Kathy T, additional, Kim, Hee Jong, additional, Nguyen, Joseph Duy, additional, Gurley, Kayla G H, additional, Ta, Truc, additional, Patel, Vijay, additional, Han, Lisa, additional, Truong-N, Khoa T, additional, Liang, Letty, additional, Chu, Maggie K, additional, Lam, Hiu, additional, Ahn, Hannah G, additional, Banerjee, Abhik Kumar, additional, Choi, In Young, additional, Kelley, Ross G, additional, Moridzadeh, Naseem, additional, Khan, Awais M, additional, Khan, Omair, additional, Lee, Szuyao, additional, Johnson, Elizabeth B, additional, Tigranyan, Annie, additional, Wang, Jay, additional, Gandhi, Anand D, additional, Padhiar, Manish M, additional, Calvopina, Joseph Hargan, additional, Sumra, Kirandeep, additional, Ou, Kristy, additional, Wu, Jessie C, additional, Dickan, Joseph N, additional, Ahmadi, Sabrena M, additional, Allen, Donald N, additional, Mai, Van Thanh, additional, Ansari, Saif, additional, Yeh, George, additional, Yoon, Earl, additional, Gon, Kimberly, additional, Yu, John Y, additional, He, Johnny, additional, Zaretsky, Jesse M, additional, Lee, Noemi E, additional, Kuoy, Edward, additional, Patananan, Alexander N, additional, Sitz, Daniel, additional, Tran, PhuongThao, additional, Do, Minh-Tu, additional, Akhave, Samira J, additional, Alvarez, Silverio D, additional, Asem, Bobby, additional, Asem, Neda, additional, Azarian, Nicole A, additional, Babaesfahani, Arezou, additional, Bahrami, Ahmad, additional, Bhamra, Manjeet, additional, Bhargava, Ragini, additional, Bhatia, Rakesh, additional, Bhatia, Subir, additional, Bumacod, Nicholas, additional, Caine, Jonathan J, additional, Caldwell, Thomas A, additional, Calica, Nicole A, additional, Calonico, Elise M, additional, Chan, Carman, additional, Chan, Helen H-L, additional, Chang, Albert, additional, Chang, Chiaen, additional, Chang, Daniel, additional, Chang, Jennifer S, additional, Charania, Nauman, additional, Chen, Jasmine Y, additional, Chen, Kevin, additional, Chen, Lu, additional, Chen, Yuyu, additional, Cheung, Derek J, additional, Cheung, Jesse J, additional, Chew, Jessica J, additional, Chew, Nicole B, additional, Chien, Cheng-An Tony, additional, Chin, Alana M, additional, Chin, Chee Jia, additional, Cho, Youngho, additional, Chou, Man Ting, additional, Chow, Ke-Huan K, additional, Chu, Carolyn, additional, Chu, Derrick M, additional, Chu, Virginia, additional, Chuang, Katherine, additional, Chugh, Arunit Singh, additional, Cubberly, Mark R, additional, Daniel, Michael Guillermo, additional, Datta, Sangita, additional, Dhaliwal, Raj, additional, Dinh, Jenny, additional, Dixit, Dhaval, additional, Dowling, Emmylou, additional, Feng, Melinda, additional, From, Christopher M, additional, Furukawa, Daisuke, additional, Gaddipati, Himaja, additional, Gevorgyan, Lilit, additional, Ghaznavi, Zunera, additional, Ghosh, Tulika, additional, Gill, Jaskaran, additional, Groves, David J, additional, Gurara, Kalkidan K, additional, Haghighi, Ali R, additional, Havard, Alexandra L, additional, Heyrani, Nasser, additional, Hioe, Tanya, additional, Hong, Kirim, additional, Houman, Justin J, additional, Howland, Molly, additional, Hsia, Elaine L, additional, Hsueh, Justin, additional, Hu, Stacy, additional, Huang, Andrew J, additional, Huynh, Jasmine C, additional, Huynh, Jenny, additional, Iwuchukwu, Chris, additional, Jang, Michael J, additional, Jiang, An An, additional, Kahlon, Simran, additional, Kao, Pei-Yun, additional, Kaur, Manpreet, additional, Keehn, Matthew G, additional, Kim, Elizabeth J, additional, Kim, Hannah, additional, Kim, Michelle J, additional, Kim, Shawn J, additional, Kitich, Aleksandar, additional, Kornberg, Ross A, additional, Kouzelos, Nicholas G, additional, Kuon, Jane, additional, Lau, Bryan, additional, Lau, Roger K, additional, Law, Rona, additional, Le, Huy D, additional, Le, Rachael, additional, Lee, Carrou, additional, Lee, Christina, additional, Lee, Grace E, additional, Lee, Kenny, additional, Lee, Michelle J, additional, Lee, Regina V, additional, Lee, Sean H K, additional, Lee, Sung Kyu, additional, Lee, Sung-Ling D, additional, Lee, Yong Jun, additional, Leong, Megan J, additional, Li, David M, additional, Li, Hao, additional, Liang, Xingfu, additional, Lin, Eric, additional, Lin, Michelle M, additional, Lin, Peter, additional, Lin, Tiffany, additional, Lu, Stacey, additional, Luong, Serena S, additional, Ma, Jessica S, additional, Ma, Li, additional, Maghen, Justin N, additional, Mallam, Sravya, additional, Mann, Shivtaj, additional, Melehani, Jason H, additional, Miller, Ryan C, additional, Mittal, Nitish, additional, Moazez, Carmel M, additional, Moon, Susie, additional, Moridzadeh, Rameen, additional, Ngo, Kaley, additional, Nguyen, Hanh H, additional, Nguyen, Kambria, additional, Nguyen, Thien H, additional, Nieh, Angela W, additional, Niu, Isabella, additional, Oh, Seo-Kyung, additional, Ong, Jessica R, additional, Oyama, Randi K, additional, Park, Joseph, additional, Park, Yaelim A, additional, Passmore, Kimberly A, additional, Patel, Ami, additional, Patel, Amy A, additional, Patel, Dhruv, additional, Patel, Tirth, additional, Peterson, Katherine E, additional, Pham, An Huynh, additional, Pham, Steven V, additional, Phuphanich, Melissa E, additional, Poria, Neil D, additional, Pourzia, Alexandra, additional, Ragland, Victoria, additional, Ranat, Riki D, additional, Rice, Cameron M, additional, Roh, David, additional, Rojhani, Solomon, additional, Sadri, Lili, additional, Saguros, Agafe, additional, Saifee, Zainab, additional, Sandhu, Manjot, additional, Scruggs, Brooke, additional, Scully, Lisa M, additional, Shih, Vanessa, additional, Shin, Brian A, additional, Sholklapper, Tamir, additional, Singh, Harnek, additional, Singh, Sumedha, additional, Snyder, Sondra L, additional, Sobotka, Katelyn F, additional, Song, Sae Ho, additional, Sukumar, Siddharth, additional, Sullivan, Halley C, additional, Sy, Mark, additional, Tan, Hande, additional, Taylor, Sara K, additional, Thaker, Shivani K, additional, Thakore, Tulsi, additional, Tong, Gregory E, additional, Tran, Jacinda N, additional, Tran, Jonathan, additional, Tran, Tuan D, additional, Tran, Vivi, additional, Trang, Cindy L, additional, Trinh, Hung G, additional, Trinh, Peter, additional, Tseng, Han-Ching H, additional, Uotani, Ted T, additional, Uraizee, Akram V, additional, Vu, Kent K T, additional, Vu, Kevin K T, additional, Wadhwani, Komal, additional, Walia, Paluk K, additional, Wang, Rebecca S, additional, Wang, Shuo, additional, Wang, Stephanie J, additional, Wiredja, Danica D, additional, Wong, Andrew L, additional, Wu, Daniel, additional, Xue, Xi, additional, Yanez, Griselda, additional, Yang, Yung-Hsuan, additional, Ye, Zhong, additional, Yee, Victor W, additional, Yeh, Cynthia, additional, Zhao, Yue, additional, Zheng, Xin, additional, Ziegenbalg, Anke, additional, Alkali, Jon, additional, Azizkhanian, Ida, additional, Bhakta, Akash, additional, Berry, Luke, additional, Castillo, Ryen, additional, Darwish, Sonja, additional, Dickinson, Holly, additional, Dutta, Ritika, additional, Ghosh, Rahul Kumar, additional, Guerin, Riley, additional, Hofman, Jonathan, additional, Iwamoto, Garrick, additional, Kang, Sarah, additional, Kim, Andrew, additional, Kim, Brian, additional, Kim, Hanwool, additional, Kim, Kristine, additional, Kim, Suji, additional, Ko, Julie, additional, Koenig, Michael, additional, LaRiviere, Alejandro, additional, Lee, Clifton, additional, Lee, Jiwon, additional, Lung, Brandon, additional, Mittelman, Max, additional, Murata, Mark, additional, Park, Yujin, additional, Rothberg, Daniel, additional, Sprung-Keyser, Ben, additional, Thaker, Kunal, additional, Yip, Vivian, additional, Picard, Paul, additional, Diep, Francie, additional, Villarasa, Nikki, additional, Hartenstein, Volker, additional, Shapiro, Casey, additional, Levis-Fitzgerald, Marc, additional, Jaworski, Leslie, additional, Loppato, David, additional, Clark, Ira E, additional, and Banerjee, Utpal, additional
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
54. Satellite-Based Identification of Aquaculture Farming over Coastal Areas around Bhitarkanika, Odisha Using a Neural Network Method
- Author
-
Singh, Sumedha, primary and Parida, Bikash, additional
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
55. PAPR reduction in SC-FDMA using transmit pulse shaping
- Author
-
Singh, Sumedha, primary, Sharique, Mohd, additional, and Moinuddin, Athar Ali, additional
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
56. Preoperative and Postoperative Segmental and Overall Range of Motion in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spinal Fusion Using HA-Infused PEEK and HA-Treated Titanium Alloy Interbody Cages
- Author
-
Kazarian, Gregory S., Du, Jerry, Gang, Catherine Himo, Shahi, Pratysuh, Asada, Tomoyuki, Lu, Amy, Korsun, Maximillian, Tuma, Olivia, Singh, Nishtha, Araghi, Kasra, Maayan, Omri, Singh, Sumedha, and Iyer, Sravisht
- Abstract
Study Design Retrospective observational radiographic analysis.Objective Determine how single level lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) alters segmental range of motion (ROM) at adjacent levels and decreases overall ROM.Methods This study included 54 patients who underwent single-level anterior (ALIF, 39%), thoraco-LIF (TLIF, 26%), posterior LIF (PLIF, 22%), or lateral LIF (LLIF, 13%) (L2-3/L3-4/L4-5/L5-S1: 4%/13%/35%/48%). Segmental ROM from L1-2 to L5-S1 and the overall lumbar ROM (L1-S1) were assessed from preoperative and postoperative flexion-extension radiographs. K-means cluster analysis was used to identify ROM subgroups.Results The overall L1-S1 ROM decreased 14% (25.5 ± 20.4° to 22.0 ± 17.2°, P= .104) postoperatively. ROM at the fusion level decreased 77% (4.8 ± 5.0° to 1.1 ± 1.1°, P< .001). Caudal adjacent segment ROM decreased 12% (5.2 ± 5.7° to 4.6 ± 4.4°, P= .345) and cranially ROM increased 34% (4.3 ± 5.0° to 5.7 ± 5.7°, P= .05). K-cluster analysis identified 3 distinct clusters (P< .05). Cluster 1 lost more ROM and had less improvement in patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) than average. Cluster 2 had less ROM loss than average with worse PROMs improvement. Cluster 3 did not have changes in ROM and better improvement in PROMs than average. Successful fusion was verified in 96% of all instrumented segments with >6 months follow-up (ROM <4°).Conclusion Following single-level L IF, patients should expect a loss of 3.3°, or 14% of overall lumbar motion with increases in ROM of the cranial segment. However, specific clusters of patients exist that experience different relative changes in ROM and PROMs.
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
57. Preoperative Disability Influences Effectiveness of Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State in Predicting Patient Improvement Following Cervical Spine Surgery
- Author
-
Shahi, Pratyush, Maayan, Omri, Subramanian, Tejas, Singh, Nishtha, Singh, Sumedha, Araghi, Kasra, Tuma, Olivia, Asada, Tomoyuki, Korsun, Maximilian, Sheha, Evan, Dowdell, James, Qureshi, Sheeraz A., and Iyer, Sravisht
- Abstract
Study Design Retrospective cohort.Objective To compare the characteristics of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) metrics when interpreting Neck Disability Index (NDI) following cervical spine surgery.Methods Patients who underwent primary cervical fusion, discectomy, or laminectomy were included. NDI and global rating change (GRC) data at 6 months/1 year/2 years were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of MCID and PASS in predicting improvement on GRC were calculated for the overall cohort and separately for patients with minimal (NDI <30), moderate (NDI 30 – 49), and severe (NDI ≥ 50) preoperative disability. Two groups with patients who achieved PASS but not MCID and patients who achieved MCID but not PASS were analyzed.Results 141 patients (206 responses) were included. PASS had significantly greater sensitivity for the overall cohort (85% vs 73% with MCID, P= .02) and patients with minimal disability (96% vs 53% with MCID, P< .001). MCID had greater sensitivity for patients with severe disability (78% vs 57% with PASS, P= .05). Sensitivity was not significantly different for PASS and MCID in patients with moderate preoperative disability (83% vs 92%, P= .1). 17% of patients achieved PASS but not MCID and 9% of patients achieved MCID but not PASS. Most of these patients still reported improvement with no significant difference between the 2 groups (89% vs 72%, P= .13).Conclusion PASS and MCID are better metrics for patients with minimal and severe preoperative disability, respectively. Both metrics are equally effective for patients with moderate preoperative disability.
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
58. Spiritual Existence in the Age of Social Media: An Account of Contentment vs Thirst.
- Author
-
Singh, Sumedha
- Subjects
SELF-control ,SOCIAL accounting ,SOCIAL media ,LOSS control ,CONTENTMENT ,THIRST - Abstract
This study investigates the currently prevailing ill-effects of using Smartphone on physical as well as mental well being. In this study, it is found that the Smartphone users are facing numerous direct and indirect challenges knowingly or unknowingly. After interpreting all the ill-effects in totality, it was concluded that one of the major losses is the loss of self control or self discipline. This study concludes that a better self control leading to a quality life could be achieved by using the Smartphone more consciously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2018
59. Oral Administration of the Probiotic Lactobacillus casei Ameliorates Gut Morphology and Physiology in Malnourished-Giardia intestinalis-Infected BALB/c Mice
- Author
-
Shukla, Geeta, primary, Singh, Sumedha, additional, and Verma, Angela, additional
- Published
- 2013
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
60. Differential Electrophysiological Changes in Striatal Output Neurons in Huntington's Disease
- Author
-
André, Véronique M., primary, Cepeda, Carlos, additional, Fisher, Yvette E., additional, Huynh, My, additional, Bardakjian, Nora, additional, Singh, Sumedha, additional, Yang, X. William, additional, and Levine, Michael S., additional
- Published
- 2011
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
61. Limited Improvement With Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Alone for Degenerative Scoliosis With Cobb Angle Over 20°: The Impact of Decompression Location.
- Author
-
Asada T, Simon CZ, Singh N, Tuma O, Subramanian T, Araghi K, Lu AZ, Mai E, Kim YE, Allen MRJ, Korsun M, Zhang J, Kwas C, Singh S, Dowdell J, Sheha ED, Qureshi SA, and Iyer S
- Subjects
- Humans, Female, Male, Aged, Retrospective Studies, Middle Aged, Treatment Outcome, Spinal Stenosis surgery, Spinal Stenosis diagnostic imaging, Aged, 80 and over, Decompression, Surgical methods, Scoliosis surgery, Scoliosis diagnostic imaging, Lumbar Vertebrae surgery, Lumbar Vertebrae diagnostic imaging, Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures methods
- Abstract
Study Design: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected multisurgeon registry., Objective: To evaluate the outcomes of minimally invasive (MI) decompression in patients with severe degenerative scoliosis (DS) and identify factors associated with poorer outcomes., Summary of Background Context: MI decompression has gained widespread acceptance as a treatment option for patients with lumbar canal stenosis and DS. However, there is a lack of research regarding the clinical outcomes and the impact of MI decompression location in patients with severe DS exhibiting a Cobb angle exceeding 20°., Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent MI decompression alone were included and categorized into the DS or control groups based on Cobb angle (>20°). Decompression location was labeled as "scoliosis-related" when the decompression levels were across or between end vertebrae and "outside" when the operative levels did not include the end vertebrae. The outcomes, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), were compared between the propensity score-matched groups for improvement and minimal clinical importance difference (MCID) achievement at ≥1 year postoperatively. Multivariable regression analysis was conducted to identify factors contributing to the nonachievement of MCID in ODI of the DS group at the ≥1-year time point., Results: A total of 253 patients (41 DS) were included in the study. Following matching for age, sex, osteoporosis status, psoas muscle area, and preoperative ODI, the DS groups exhibited a significantly lower rate of MCID achievement in ODI (DS: 45.5% vs. control 69.0%, P =0.047). The "scoliosis-related" decompression (odds ratio: 9.9, P =0.028) was an independent factor of nonachievement of MCID in ODI within the DS group., Conclusions: In patients with a Cobb angle >20°, lumbar decompression surgery, even in the MI approach, may result in limited improvement of disability and physical function. Caution should be exercised when determining a surgical plan, especially when decompression involves the level between or across the end vertebrae., Level of Evidence: 3., Competing Interests: S.A.Q. has the following disclosures: AMOpportunities: Other financial or material support; Annals of Translational Medicine: Editorial or governing board; Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons: Board or committee member; Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Contemporary Spine Surgery: Editorial or governing board; Globus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Hospital Special Surgery Journal: Editorial or governing board; HS2, LLC: Stock or stock Options; International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) - Program Committee member: Board or committee member; Lifelink.com: Other financial or material support; Lumbar Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Minimally Invasive Spine Study Group: Board or committee member; North American Spine Society: Board or committee member; Simplify Medical Inc.: Other financial or material support; Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS) - Program Committee member: Board or committee member; Spinal Simplicity: Other financial or material support; SpineGuard Inc.: Paid consultant; Stryker: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Surgalign: Paid consultant; Tissue Differentiation Intelligence: Stock or stock Options; Viseon Inc.: Paid consultant; Research support. S.I. has the following disclosures: Globus Medical: Paid presenter or speaker; Stryker: Paid presenter or speaker; Vertebral Columns/International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS): Editorial or governing board. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
62. Morbidly Obese Patients Have Similar Clinical Outcomes and Recovery Kinetics After Minimally Invasive Decompression.
- Author
-
Shahi P, Subramanian T, Singh S, Araghi K, Asada T, Korsun M, Singh N, Tuma O, Simon C, Vaishnav A, Mai E, Zhang J, Kwas C, Allen M, Kim E, Heuer A, Sheha E, Dowdell J, Qureshi S, and Iyer S
- Abstract
Study Design: Retrospective cohort., Objective: To study the impact of class 2/3 obesity (body mass index, BMI >35) on outcomes following minimally invasive decompression., Summary of Background Data: No previous study has analyzed the impact of class 2/3 obesity on outcomes following minimally invasive decompression., Methods: Patients who underwent primary minimally invasive decompression were divided into 4 cohorts based on their BMI: normal (BMI 18.5 to <25), overweight (25 to <30), class 1 obesity (30 to <35), and class 2/3 obesity (BMI >35). Outcome measures were: 1) intraoperative variables: operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL); 2) patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale, VAS back and leg; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS); 3) global rating change (GRC), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) achievement rates; 4) return to activities; and 5) complication and reoperation rates., Results: 838 patients were included (226 normal, 357 overweight, 179 class 1 obesity, 76 class 2/3 obesity). Class 1 and 2/3 obesity groups had significantly greater operative times compared to the other groups. Class 2/3 obesity group had worse ODI, VAS back and SF-12 PCS preoperatively, worse ODI, VAS back, VAS leg and SF-12 PCS at <6 months, and worse ODI and SF-12 PCS at >6 months. However, they had significant improvement in all PROMs at both postoperative timepoints and the magnitude of improvement was similar to other groups. No significant differences were found in MCID and PASS achievement rates, likelihood of betterment on the GRC scale, return to activities, and complication/reoperation rates., Conclusions: Class 2/3 obese patients have worse PROMs pre- and post-operatively. However, they show similar improvement in PROMs, MCID and PASS achievement rates, likelihood of betterment, recovery kinetics, and complication/reoperation rates as other BMI groups following minimally invasive decompression., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest: Sheeraz A. Qureshi: Royalties: Stryker K2M, Globus Medical, Inc.; Globus Medical, Inc.: HS2, LLC; Private Investments: Tissue Differentiation Intelligence; Consulting: Stryker K2M, Globus Medical, Inc.; Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements: AMOpportunities, Globus Medical, Inc.; Board of Directors: Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery; Scientific Advisory Board/Other Office: International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery, Cervical Spine Research Society, Lumbar Spine Research Society, North American Spine Society, Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons, Simplify Medical, Inc., LifeLink.com Inc., Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, Minimally Invasive Spine Study Group, Spinal Simplicity, LLC, Contemporary Spine Surgery, Annals of Translational Medicine. Sravisht Iyer: Innovasis (Research Support), Globus Medical (Speaker’s Bureau), Healthgrades (Advisory Board Member), Stryker (Speaker’s Bureau). Rest of the authors: None, (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
63. Temporal Trends of Improvement After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
- Author
-
Shahi P, Subramanian T, Tuma O, Singh S, Araghi K, Asada T, Korsun M, Singh N, Simon C, Vaishnav A, Mai E, Zhang J, Kwas C, Allen M, Kim E, Heuer A, Sheha E, Dowdell J, Qureshi S, and Iyer S
- Abstract
Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data., Objective: To analyze temporal trends in improvement after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF)., Summary of Background Data: Although several studies have shown that patients improve significantly after MIS TLIF, evidence regarding the temporal trends in improvement is still largely lacking., Methods: Patients who underwent primary single-level MIS TLIF for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine and had a minimum of 2-year follow-up were included. Outcome measures were: 1) patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale, VAS back and leg; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS); 2) global rating change (GRC); 3) minimal clinically important difference (MCID); and 4) return to activities. Timepoints analyzed were preoperative, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Trends across these timepoints were plotted on graphs., Results: 236 patients were included. VAS back and VAS leg were found to have statistically significant improvement compared to the previous timepoint up to 3 months after surgery. ODI and SF-12 PCS were found to have statistically significant improvement compared to the previous timepoint up to 6 months after surgery. Beyond these timepoints, there was no significant improvement in PROMs. 80% of patients reported feeling better compared to preoperative by 3 months. >50% of patients achieved MCID in all PROMs by 3 months. Most patients returned to driving, returned to work, and discontinued narcotics at an average of 21, 20, and 10 days, respectively., Conclusions: Patients are expected to improve up to 6 months after MIS TLIF. Back pain and leg pain improve up to 3 months and disability and physical function improve up to 6 months. Beyond these timepoints, the trends in improvement tend to reach a plateau. 80% of patients feel better compared to preoperative by 3 months after surgery., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest: Sheeraz A. Qureshi: Royalties: Stryker K2M, Globus Medical, Inc.; Globus Medical, Inc.: HS2, LLC; Private Investments: Tissue Differentiation Intelligence; Consulting: Stryker K2M, Globus Medical, Inc.; Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements: AMOpportunities, Globus Medical, Inc.; Board of Directors: Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery; Scientific Advisory Board/Other Office: International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery, Cervical Spine Research Society, Lumbar Spine Research Society, North American Spine Society, Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons, Simplify Medical, Inc., LifeLink.com Inc., Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, Minimally Invasive Spine Study Group, Spinal Simplicity, LLC, Contemporary Spine Surgery, Annals of Translational Medicine. Sravisht Iyer: Innovasis (Research Support), Globus Medical (Speaker’s Bureau), Healthgrades (Advisory Board Member), Stryker (Speaker’s Bureau). Rest of the authors: None, (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
64. Preoperative and Postoperative Segmental and Overall Range of Motion in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spinal Fusion Using HA-Infused PEEK and HA-Treated Titanium Alloy Interbody Cages.
- Author
-
Kazarian GS, Du J, Gang CH, Shahi P, Asada T, Lu A, Korsun M, Tuma O, Singh N, Araghi K, Maayan O, Singh S, and Iyer S
- Abstract
Study Design: Retrospective observational radiographic analysis., Objective: Determine how single level lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) alters segmental range of motion (ROM) at adjacent levels and decreases overall ROM., Methods: This study included 54 patients who underwent single-level anterior (ALIF, 39%), thoraco-LIF (TLIF, 26%), posterior LIF (PLIF, 22%), or lateral LIF (LLIF, 13%) (L2-3/L3-4/L4-5/L5-S1: 4%/13%/35%/48%). Segmental ROM from L1-2 to L5-S1 and the overall lumbar ROM (L1-S1) were assessed from preoperative and postoperative flexion-extension radiographs. K-means cluster analysis was used to identify ROM subgroups., Results: The overall L1-S1 ROM decreased 14% (25.5 ± 20.4° to 22.0 ± 17.2°, P = .104) postoperatively. ROM at the fusion level decreased 77% (4.8 ± 5.0° to 1.1 ± 1.1°, P < .001). Caudal adjacent segment ROM decreased 12% (5.2 ± 5.7° to 4.6 ± 4.4°, P = .345) and cranially ROM increased 34% (4.3 ± 5.0° to 5.7 ± 5.7°, P = .05). K-cluster analysis identified 3 distinct clusters ( P < .05). Cluster 1 lost more ROM and had less improvement in patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) than average. Cluster 2 had less ROM loss than average with worse PROMs improvement. Cluster 3 did not have changes in ROM and better improvement in PROMs than average. Successful fusion was verified in 96% of all instrumented segments with >6 months follow-up (ROM <4°)., Conclusion: Following single-level L IF, patients should expect a loss of 3.3°, or 14% of overall lumbar motion with increases in ROM of the cranial segment. However, specific clusters of patients exist that experience different relative changes in ROM and PROMs., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
65. Preoperative Disability Influences Effectiveness of Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State in Predicting Patient Improvement Following Cervical Spine Surgery.
- Author
-
Shahi P, Maayan O, Subramanian T, Singh N, Singh S, Araghi K, Tuma O, Asada T, Korsun M, Sheha E, Dowdell J, Qureshi SA, and Iyer S
- Abstract
Study Design: Retrospective cohort., Objective: To compare the characteristics of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) metrics when interpreting Neck Disability Index (NDI) following cervical spine surgery., Methods: Patients who underwent primary cervical fusion, discectomy, or laminectomy were included. NDI and global rating change (GRC) data at 6 months/1 year/2 years were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of MCID and PASS in predicting improvement on GRC were calculated for the overall cohort and separately for patients with minimal (NDI <30), moderate (NDI 30 - 49), and severe (NDI ≥ 50) preoperative disability. Two groups with patients who achieved PASS but not MCID and patients who achieved MCID but not PASS were analyzed., Results: 141 patients (206 responses) were included. PASS had significantly greater sensitivity for the overall cohort (85% vs 73% with MCID, P = .02) and patients with minimal disability (96% vs 53% with MCID, P < .001). MCID had greater sensitivity for patients with severe disability (78% vs 57% with PASS, P = .05). Sensitivity was not significantly different for PASS and MCID in patients with moderate preoperative disability (83% vs 92%, P = .1). 17% of patients achieved PASS but not MCID and 9% of patients achieved MCID but not PASS. Most of these patients still reported improvement with no significant difference between the 2 groups (89% vs 72%, P = .13)., Conclusion: PASS and MCID are better metrics for patients with minimal and severe preoperative disability, respectively. Both metrics are equally effective for patients with moderate preoperative disability., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
66. Expression-Based Cell Lineage Analysis in Drosophila Through a Course-Based Research Experience for Early Undergraduates.
- Author
-
Olson JM, Evans CJ, Ngo KT, Kim HJ, Nguyen JD, Gurley KGH, Ta T, Patel V, Han L, Truong-N KT, Liang L, Chu MK, Lam H, Ahn HG, Banerjee AK, Choi IY, Kelley RG, Moridzadeh N, Khan AM, Khan O, Lee S, Johnson EB, Tigranyan A, Wang J, Gandhi AD, Padhiar MM, Calvopina JH, Sumra K, Ou K, Wu JC, Dickan JN, Ahmadi SM, Allen DN, Mai VT, Ansari S, Yeh G, Yoon E, Gon K, Yu JY, He J, Zaretsky JM, Lee NE, Kuoy E, Patananan AN, Sitz D, Tran P, Do MT, Akhave SJ, Alvarez SD, Asem B, Asem N, Azarian NA, Babaesfahani A, Bahrami A, Bhamra M, Bhargava R, Bhatia R, Bhatia S, Bumacod N, Caine JJ, Caldwell TA, Calica NA, Calonico EM, Chan C, Chan HH, Chang A, Chang C, Chang D, Chang JS, Charania N, Chen JY, Chen K, Chen L, Chen Y, Cheung DJ, Cheung JJ, Chew JJ, Chew NB, Chien CT, Chin AM, Chin CJ, Cho Y, Chou MT, Chow KK, Chu C, Chu DM, Chu V, Chuang K, Chugh AS, Cubberly MR, Daniel MG, Datta S, Dhaliwal R, Dinh J, Dixit D, Dowling E, Feng M, From CM, Furukawa D, Gaddipati H, Gevorgyan L, Ghaznavi Z, Ghosh T, Gill J, Groves DJ, Gurara KK, Haghighi AR, Havard AL, Heyrani N, Hioe T, Hong K, Houman JJ, Howland M, Hsia EL, Hsueh J, Hu S, Huang AJ, Huynh JC, Huynh J, Iwuchukwu C, Jang MJ, Jiang AA, Kahlon S, Kao PY, Kaur M, Keehn MG, Kim EJ, Kim H, Kim MJ, Kim SJ, Kitich A, Kornberg RA, Kouzelos NG, Kuon J, Lau B, Lau RK, Law R, Le HD, Le R, Lee C, Lee C, Lee GE, Lee K, Lee MJ, Lee RV, Lee SHK, Lee SK, Lee SD, Lee YJ, Leong MJ, Li DM, Li H, Liang X, Lin E, Lin MM, Lin P, Lin T, Lu S, Luong SS, Ma JS, Ma L, Maghen JN, Mallam S, Mann S, Melehani JH, Miller RC, Mittal N, Moazez CM, Moon S, Moridzadeh R, Ngo K, Nguyen HH, Nguyen K, Nguyen TH, Nieh AW, Niu I, Oh SK, Ong JR, Oyama RK, Park J, Park YA, Passmore KA, Patel A, Patel AA, Patel D, Patel T, Peterson KE, Pham AH, Pham SV, Phuphanich ME, Poria ND, Pourzia A, Ragland V, Ranat RD, Rice CM, Roh D, Rojhani S, Sadri L, Saguros A, Saifee Z, Sandhu M, Scruggs B, Scully LM, Shih V, Shin BA, Sholklapper T, Singh H, Singh S, Snyder SL, Sobotka KF, Song SH, Sukumar S, Sullivan HC, Sy M, Tan H, Taylor SK, Thaker SK, Thakore T, Tong GE, Tran JN, Tran J, Tran TD, Tran V, Trang CL, Trinh HG, Trinh P, Tseng HH, Uotani TT, Uraizee AV, Vu KKT, Vu KKT, Wadhwani K, Walia PK, Wang RS, Wang S, Wang SJ, Wiredja DD, Wong AL, Wu D, Xue X, Yanez G, Yang YH, Ye Z, Yee VW, Yeh C, Zhao Y, Zheng X, Ziegenbalg A, Alkali J, Azizkhanian I, Bhakta A, Berry L, Castillo R, Darwish S, Dickinson H, Dutta R, Ghosh RK, Guerin R, Hofman J, Iwamoto G, Kang S, Kim A, Kim B, Kim H, Kim K, Kim S, Ko J, Koenig M, LaRiviere A, Lee C, Lee J, Lung B, Mittelman M, Murata M, Park Y, Rothberg D, Sprung-Keyser B, Thaker K, Yip V, Picard P, Diep F, Villarasa N, Hartenstein V, Shapiro C, Levis-Fitzgerald M, Jaworski L, Loppato D, Clark IE, and Banerjee U
- Subjects
- Animals, Brain, Eye, Gene Expression, Lymphatic System, Research, Students, Universities, Wings, Animal, Cell Lineage, Drosophila genetics
- Abstract
A variety of genetic techniques have been devised to determine cell lineage relationships during tissue development. Some of these systems monitor cell lineages spatially and/or temporally without regard to gene expression by the cells, whereas others correlate gene expression with the lineage under study. The G AL4 T echnique for R eal-time a nd C lonal E xpression (G-TRACE) system allows for rapid, fluorescent protein-based visualization of both current and past GAL4 expression patterns and is therefore amenable to genome-wide expression-based lineage screens. Here we describe the results from such a screen, performed by undergraduate students of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Undergraduate Research Consortium for Functional Genomics (URCFG) and high school summer scholars as part of a discovery-based education program. The results of the screen, which reveal novel expression-based lineage patterns within the brain, the imaginal disc epithelia, and the hematopoietic lymph gland, have been compiled into the G-TRACE Expression Database (GED), an online resource for use by the Drosophila research community. The impact of this discovery-based research experience on student learning gains was assessed independently and shown to be greater than that of similar programs conducted elsewhere. Furthermore, students participating in the URCFG showed considerably higher STEM retention rates than UCLA STEM students that did not participate in the URCFG, as well as STEM students nationwide., (Copyright © 2019 Olson et al.)
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.