No abstract available.
Female ; Luteal Phase* ; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted*

PURPOSE: Despite the benefits of minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer, there are a lack of randomized trials comparing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy. We compared morbidity, cost of care, and survival between abdominal radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the Korean nationwide database to identify women with cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014. Patients who underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy were compared to those who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. Perioperative morbidity, the use of adjuvant therapy, and survival were evaluated after propensity score balancing. RESULTS: We identified 6,335 patients, including 3,235 who underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy and 3,100 who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. The use of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy increased from 46.1% in 2011 to 51.8% in 2014. Patients who were younger, had a more recent year of diagnosis, and were treated in the metropolitan area were more likely to undergo a laparoscopic procedure (p < 0.001). Compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with lower rates of complication, fewertransfusions, a shorter hospital stay, less adjuvant therapy, and reduced total medical costs (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a better overall survival than abdominal operation (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.85). CONCLUSION: In the postdissemination era, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with more favorable morbidity profiles, a lower cost of care, and comparable survival than abdominal radical hysterectomy.
Diagnosis ; Female ; Humans ; Hysterectomy ; Laparoscopy ; Length of Stay ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; Propensity Score ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms

The purposes of this study were to assess hospital foodservice quality and to identify causes of quality problems and improvement strategies. Based on the review of literature, hospital foodservice quality was defined and the Hospital Foodservice Quality model was presented. The study was conducted in two steps. In Step 1, nutritional standards specified on diet manuals and nutrients of planned menus, served meals, and consumed meals for regular, diabetic, and low-sodium diets were assessed in three general hospitals. Quality problems were found in all three hospitals since patients consumed less than their nutritional requirements. Considering the effects of four gaps in the Hospital Foodservice Quality model, Gaps 3 and 4 were selected as critical control points (CCPs) for hospital foodservice quality management. In Step 2, the causes of the gaps and improvement strategies at CCPs were labeled as "quality hazards" and "corrective actions", respectively and were identified using a case study. At Gap 3, inaccurate forecasting and a lack of control during production were identified as quality hazards and corrective actions proposed were establishing an accurate forecasting system, improving standardized recipes, emphasizing the use of standardized recipes, and conducting employee training. At Gap 4, quality hazards were menus of low preferences, inconsistency of menu quality, a lack of menu variety, improper food temperatures, and patients' lack of understanding of their nutritional requirements. To reduce Gap 4, the dietary departments should conduct patient surveys on menu preferences on a regular basis, develop new menus, especially for therapeutic diets, maintain food temperatures during distribution, provide more choices, conduct meal rounds, and provide nutrition education and counseling. The Hospital Foodservice Quality Model was a useful tool for identifying causes of the foodservice quality problems and improvement strategies from a holistic point of view.
Counseling ; Diet ; Diet, Sodium-Restricted ; Forecasting ; Hospitals, General ; Humans ; Meals ; Nutritional Requirements

No abstract available.

Background: In asthma, consistent control of chronic airway inflammation is crucial, and the use of asthma-controller medication has been emphasized. Our purpose in this study is to compare the incidence of acute exacerbation and healthcare costs related to the use of asthma-controller medication. Methods: By using data collected by the National Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, we compared one-year clinical outcomes and medical costs from July 2014 to June 2015 (follow-up period) between two groups of patients with asthma who received different prescriptions for recommended asthma-controller medication (inhaled corticosteroids or leukotriene receptor antagonists) at least once from July 2013 to June 2014 (assessment period). Results: There were 51,757 patients who satisfied our inclusion criteria. Among them, 13,702 patients (26.5%) were prescribed a recommended asthma-controller medication during the assessment period. In patients using a recommended asthma-controller medication, the frequency of acute exacerbations decreased in the follow-up period, from 2.7% to 1.1%. The total medical costs of the controller group decreased during the follow-up period compared to the assessment period, from $3,772,692 to $1,985,475. Only 50.9% of patients in the controller group used healthcare services in the follow-up period, and the use of asthma-controller medication decreased in the follow-up period. Conclusion Overall, patients using a recommended asthma-controller medication showed decreased acute exacerbation and reduced total healthcare cost by half.

Background: The effect of underlying chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during a pandemic is controversial. The purpose of this study was to examine the prognosis of COVID-19 according to the underlying COPD. Methods: COVID-19 patients were assessed using nationwide health insurance data. Comorbidities were evaluated using the modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (mCCI) which excluded COPD from conventional CCI scores. Baseline characteristics were assessed. Univariable and multiple logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to determine effects of variables on clinical outcomes. Ages, sex, mCCI, socioeconomic status, and underlying COPD were selected as variables. Results: COPD patients showed older age (71.3±11.6 years vs. 47.7±19.1 years, p<0.001), higher mCCI (2.6±1.9 vs. 0.8±1.3, p<0.001), and higher mortality (22.9% vs. 3.2%, p<0.001) than non-COPD patients. The intensive care unit admission rate and hospital length of stay were not significantly different between the two groups. All variables were associated with mortality in univariate analysis. However, underlying COPD was not associated with mortality unlike other variables in the adjusted analysis. Older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11–1.14; p<0.001), male sex (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.67–3.12; p<0.001), higher mCCI (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.20–1.41; p<0.001), and medical aid insurance (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.03–2.32; p=0.035) were associated with mortality. Conclusion Underlying COPD is not associated with a poor prognosis of COVID-19.

Background: Female infertility is a crucial problem with significant implications for individuals and society. In this study, we explore risk factors for infertility in Korean women. Methods: A total of 986 female patients who visited six major infertility clinics in Korea were recruited from April to December 2014. Fertile age-matched controls were selected from two nationwide survey study participants. Conditional logistic regression after age-matching was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of each risk factor for infertility. Results: Women with a body mass index (BMI) < 18.5 kg/m2 had 1.35 times higher odds of infertility (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.03–1.77), while those with a BMI ≥ 25.0 kg/m2 had even higher odds (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.61–2.64) compared to women with a normal BMI (18.5 kg/m2 ≤ BMI < 25 kg/m 2 ). Ever-smokers exhibited 4.94 times higher odds of infertility compared to never-smokers (95% CI, 3.45–8.85). Concerning alcohol consumption, women who consumed ≥ 7 glasses at a time showed 3.13 times significantly higher odds of infertility than those who consumed ≤ 4 glasses at a time (95% CI, 1.79–5.48). Lastly, women with thyroid disease demonstrated 1.44 times higher odds of infertility compared to women without thyroid disease (95% CI, 1.00–2.08). Conclusion Female infertility in Korea was associated with underweight, obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, and thyroid disease.