Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

The pathophysiology of sepsis is characterized by a systemic inflammatory response to infection; however, the cytokine blockade that targets a specific early inflammatory mediator, such as tumor necrosis factor, has shown disappointing results in clinical trials. During sepsis, excessive endotoxins are internalized into the cytoplasm of immune cells, resulting in dysregulated pyroptotic cell death, which induces the leakage of late mediator alarmins such as HMGB1 and PTX3. As late mediators of lethal sepsis, overwhelming amounts of alarmins bind to high-affinity TLR4/MD2 and low-affinity RAGE receptors, thereby amplifying inflammation during early-stage sepsis. In this study, we developed a novel alarmin/receptor-targeting system using a TLR4/MD2/RAGE-blocking peptide (TMR peptide) derived from the HMGB1/PTX3-receptors interacting motifs. The TMR peptide successfully attenuated HMGB1/PTX3- and LPS-mediated inflammatory cytokine production by impairing its interactions with TLR4 and RAGE. Moreover, we developed TMR peptide-conjugated liposomes (TMR-Lipo) to improve the peptide pharmacokinetics. In combination therapy, moderately antibiotic-loaded TMR-Lipo demonstrated a significant therapeutic effect in a mouse model of cecal ligation- and puncture-induced sepsis. The identification of these peptides will pave the way for the development of novel pharmacological tools for sepsis therapy.

Background and Objectives: Spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) are the most primitive cells in spermatogenesis and are the only adult stem cells capable of passing on the genome of a given species to the next generation. SSCs are the only adult stem cells known to exhibit high Oct4 expression and can be induced to self-reprogram into pluripotent cells depending on culture conditions. Epigenetic modulation is well known to be involved in the induction of pluripotency of somatic cells. However, epigenetic modulation in self-reprogramming of SSCs into pluripotent cells has not been studied. Methods: and Results: In this study, we examined the involvement of epigenetic modulation by assessing whether selfreprogramming of SSCs is enhanced by treatment with epigenetic modulators. We found that second-generation selective class I HDAC inhibitors increased SSC reprogramming efficiency, whereas non-selective HDAC inhibitors had no effect. Conclusions We showed that pluripotent stem cells derived from adult SSCs by treatment with small molecules with epigenetic modulator functions exhibit pluripotency in vitro and in vivo. Our results suggest that the mechanism of SSC reprogramming by epigenetic modulator can be used for important applications in epigenetic reprogramming research.

RNA metabolism plays a central role in regulating of T cell-mediated immunity. RNA processing, modifications, and regulations of RNA decay influence the tight and rapid regulation of gene expression during T cell phase transition. Thymic selection, quiescence maintenance, activation, differentiation, and effector functions of T cells are dependent on selective RNA modulations. Recent technical improvements have unveiled the complex crosstalk between RNAs and T cells. Moreover, resting T cells contain large amounts of untranslated mRNAs, implying that the regulation of RNA metabolism might be a key step in controlling gene expression. Considering the immunological significance of T cells for disease treatment, an understanding of RNA metabolism in T cells could provide new directions in harnessing T cells for therapeutic implications.

no abstract available.