Background/Aims: A clinical unmet need persists for medications capable of modulating the progression of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). This study aimed to assess the clinical feasibility of HK-660S (beta-lapachone) in PSC. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 2 trial, participants were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either 100 mg of HK-660S or a placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcomes were the reduction in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels and the percentage of participants showing improvements in PSC severity, as determined by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with the Anali score. Secondary endpoints included changes in liver stiffness and adverse events. Results: The analysis included 21 patients, 15 receiving HK-660S, and six receiving a placebo. Improvements in the Anali score were observed in 13.3% of the HK-660S group, with no improvements in the placebo group. HK-660S treatment resulted in a 15.2% reduction in mean ALP levels, compared to a 6.6% reduction in the placebo group. A stratified ad-hoc analysis based on baseline ALP levels showed a statistically significant response in the HK-660S group among those with ALP levels greater than twice the upper limit of normal, with a 50% responder rate (p=0.05). Additionally, 26.7% of the HK-660S group showed improvements in the enhanced liver fibrosis score, with no improvements in the placebo group. HK-660S was generally well tolerated. Conclusions HK-660S is well tolerated among patients with PSC and may improve bile duct strictures, decrease serum ALP levels, and reduce liver fibrosis (cris.nih.go.kr, Number KCT0006590).

Purpose: Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis; however, the implementation of neoadjuvant treatment enables borderline resectable cases to undergo curative resection and improves the overall survival rate. Attempts have been made to expand the eligibility criteria for neoadjuvant treatment, even in resectable cases. Some studies have suggested a correlation between vein abutment and poor prognosis or that the abutment angle may affect prognosis. This study investigated the anatomical factors affecting the vessel abutment angle and its prognostic value in pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent surgery between 2012 and 2017 were included in this study. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment were excluded. Data from only the intent-to-treat pancreaticoduodenectomy group were included in the analysis. Clinicopathological characteristics; preoperative factors such as CA 19-9, preoperative biliary drainage, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, portal vein/superior mesenteric vein contact angle measured via CT scan; and intraoperative factors were collected for analysis. Results: A total of 365 patients were included in this study, and the abutment group included 92 patients (25.2%). The abutment and no-contact groups did not show any significant differences in terms of the overall survival or diseasefree survival rate. Among the abutment groups, patients with less than 90° and 90°–180° did not show any significant differences. In the multivariate analysis, the only preoperative factor that had a prognostic effect was CA 19-9, a biological factor. Conclusion When there is no vessel invasion in the abutment group, upfront surgery should be considered because the angle does not affect the overall prognosis.

Purpose: Treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vary according to known guidelines among liver resection (LR), liver transplantation (LT), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of initial treatment for patients with resectable HCC within Milan criteria (MC) via nationwide data. Methods: Patients with resectable HCC (Child-Pugh class A; platelet count, ≥100,000/μL) within MC from the Korean Liver Cancer Association databank were analyzed, retrospectively. Outcomes according to initial treatment and subgroups according to tumor size and number were analyzed. Overall survival (OS) rates after initial treatment were compared. Results: A total of 3,241 patients who underwent LR (n = 1,371), LT (n = 12), RFA (n = 679), or TACE (n = 1,179) were included. The 5-year OS rates differed significantly between the groups (P < 0.05), except for LT (LR, 84.9%; LT, 82.5%;RFA, 76.2%; and TACE, 59.9%). For patients with a single tumor of any size, the 5-year OS rates of the LR group were significantly higher than RFA and TACE groups. For patients with multiple tumors, the 5-year OS rates were 78.2%, 100%, 74.3%, and 53.0% for the LR, LT, RFA, and TACE groups, respectively, but without significant difference between LR and RFA (P = 0.86). Conclusion For resectable HCC within MC, the LR had the highest OS rate for a single tumor of any size. LR and RFA showed no significant differences in OS rate for multiple tumors. LR has a much more optimistic outlook for HCC within MC.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop an approach to alleviate the discomfort caused by sandbag compression after a bone marrow examination. This research examined the effects of applying a pressure hemostasis band on bleeding, pain, and discomfort at the bone marrow examination site. Methods: This study was conducted with a nonequivalent control group non-synchronized design. For 74 patients under evaluation who underwent bone marrow examination, sandbag compression was applied to the examination site in the control group (n=37), and a pressure hemostasis band was applied to the intervention group (n=37). In both groups, absolute bed rest was performed for two hours, and bleeding, pain, and discomfort at the examination site were measured. Results: After two hours of the bone marrow examination, there was no difference in bleeding on the gauze between the two groups (F=0.59, p=.444). Bleeding occurred in three patients in the intervention group and six in the control group (χ 2 =1.14, p=.479), with no cases of hematoma detected in either group. One hour post-examination, the control group experienced significantly higher pain (F=5.45, p=.022) and discomfort (F=5.68, p=.020) than the intervention group. However, pain and discomfort levels were similar between groups after two hours. Conclusion Compared to the sandbag compression group, the band application group showed no difference in bleeding and experienced less pain and discomfort at the examination site. This confirms that the pressure hemostasis band is a suitable alternative to sandbag compression in post-examination care.

The application area of biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) is gradually expanding. Compared with conventional fusion surgery, transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using BESS (BESS-TLIF) has the advantages of less bleeding, minimal postoperative pain, and faster recovery. This technical note highlights its application in managing complex conditions such as scar tissue adhesion, altered anatomy, and implant removal, common in reoperations. The method focuses on precise dissection, endoscopic visualization, and careful tissue handling to ensure effective decompression and stabilization. Three representative cases, including reoperations for recurrent disc herniation, adjacent segment disease (ASD) following prior fusion, and ASD with nonunion of the prior fusion site requiring fusion extension, were described. All three cases exhibited clinical improvement following surgery. BESS is an effective and safe method for spinal revision surgery not only in simple decompression surgery but also in cases that required fusion surgery. As BESS is advancing, its role in complex spinal surgeries is expected to expand, potentially setting new standards in minimally invasive spine surgery.

Methods: Twelve consecutive patients underwent single-level BELIF for lumbar degenerative disease. The technique involves two small portals, one each for endoscopy and instruments. A large PEEK cage was inserted through a posterolateral approach. Clinical outcomes, including a Visual Analog Scale for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index, and the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, were assessed preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Fusion status was evaluated using computed tomography (CT) at 12 months. Results: The mean patient age was 69.1±7.2 years, with operations predominantly at the L4–5 level (83%). The mean operation time was 149.7±37.4 minutes, and the average surgical drainage was 201.4±59.7 mL. All clinical outcome measures showed significant improvement at 12 months (p<0.05). Fusion was achieved in 83.3% of patients. Cage subsidence (>1 mm) occurred in one patient (8.3%). Complications included one case each of incidental durotomy, wrong-site surgery, and wound dehiscence and three cases of asymptomatic hematoma. Conclusions BELIF using a large PEEK cage demonstrated promising clinical outcomes and fusion rates. The technique offers enhanced visualization and enables direct neural decompression while minimizing tissue trauma. The use of a large PEEK cage may contribute to improved stability and reduced subsidence risk.

Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) with interbody fusion is a relatively novel minimally invasive technique that was developed to reduce soft tissue trauma and intraoperative blood loss and shorten recovery time while achieving comparable clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative diseases. Despite the growing interest in BESS, a comprehensive analysis of its effectiveness, complication rates, and long-term outcomes remains lacking. This systematic review evaluated the clinical outcomes, surgical efficacy, and complication rates of BESS with interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases. Recent literature on endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion was included to expand the scope and gain new perspectives, thereby, providing a comparative analysis that highlighted the advantages, limitations, and emerging trends in minimally invasive spine surgery. This review synthesized current evidence to guide future research and clinical applications. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and using a combination of MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and relevant keywords, PubMed/Medline and Scopus databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 2000 and September 2024. The studies were assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions) tool to determine the risk of bias. From the 12 studies that provided clinical evidence, the data extracted were patient demographics; operative time; blood loss; clinical outcomes, such as Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores and fusion rates; and complications. The mean operative time ranged from 98 to 206 minutes, with fusion rates between 70% and 95%. Most studies reported significant improvements in VAS scores for back and leg pain and ODI scores. Complications, including dural tears (2.9%–6.4%) and hematomas (1.4%–4.3%), were infrequent but notable. BESS with interbody fusion demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes, high fusion rates, and few complications. Although these results are promising, more randomized controlled trials and long-term studies are required to confirm the broader applicability, particularly in more complex or multilevel spinal pathologies.

Methods: A total of 68 patients with symptomatic, low-grade DLS and moderate-to-severe central canal stenosis underwent ULBD using BESS. Patients were followed for at least 2 years. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the modified Macnab criteria for patient satisfaction. Radiological outcomes were assessed on the basis of sagittal translation from dynamic flexion–extension radiographs. Results: The mean VAS score for back pain decreased from 3.8±2.4 preoperatively to 1.9±2.0 at the final follow-up, and the leg pain scores decreased from 6.4±1.8 to 2.3±2.0 (both p<0.05). The ODI score improved significantly from 48.9±15.7 preoperatively to 23.1±17.5 at the final follow-up (p<0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria, 27.9%, 42.6%, 22.1%, and 7.4% of the patients reported excellent, good, fair, and poor outcomes. Radiological assessments indicated no significant changes in sagittal translation, supporting the preservation of spinal stability. Conclusions BESS with ULBD represents a safe and effective minimally invasive approach for treating low-grade DLS with central canal stenosis. It offers substantial symptom relief and functional improvement without jeopardizing spinal stability, making it a viable alternative to conventional fusion surgery.