Objective: The upper lumbar region has distinctive anatomical characteristics that contribute to the challenges of performing discectomy. We introduce far-lateral transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. Methods: We conducted retrospective review of the patients who underwent a far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy at our institution from January 2018 to September 2024. The electronic medical records, operative records, and radiologic images of the patients were reviewed. Results: A total of 27 patients underwent far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. The patient had a mean age of 54.0 ± 13.7 years. Operation was performed at the L1–2 level in 3 patients (11.1%), L2–3 in 9 patients (33.3%), and L3–4 in 15 patients (55.6%). The patients were followed-up for a mean of 27.7 ± 19.3 months. The Oswestry Disability Index was significantly decreased from 36.3 ± 6.8 preoperatively to 3.7 ± 3.3 at last follow-up (p < 0.001). The visual analogue scale (VAS) back was significantly decreased from 7.8 ± 0.9 preoperatively to 3.1 ± 0.6 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). The VAS leg was significantly decreased from 8.1 ± 0.8 preoperatively to 2.3 ± 0.7 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). Conclusion The far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy would be a viable surgical option for upper lumbar disc herniations.

Objectives: Hip fracture is a global public concern exhibiting high mortality rates but often underrecognized. We compared the mortality rates, risk, and secular trend of hip fractures with common cancers in females and males, aiming to call attention to hip fractures. Methods: In 2010–2020, 193,767 patients with the first diagnosed hip fractures and the top 5 prevalent cancers in each sex and aged 50 years and above were included. Age-standardized mortality rates were adjusted to the WHO Standard Population and the sex-specific relative risk of mortality was computed using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for potential confounders. The trend analyses used joinpoint regression to compute annual percent changes in age-standardized mortality rates. Results The 1-year and 5-year age-standardized mortality rates and sex-specific mortality risk of hip fracture are greater than those of breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 0.97) and thyroid cancer (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.64) in females and prostate cancer (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.58) in males. Moreover, mortality rates in lung cancer, male liver cancer, female breast cancer, and male prostate cancer have decreased in the past decade. For hip fracture, the mortality rates have significantly decreased in females, while in males, we observed only a decreasing trend in 1-year hip fracture mortality, not in 5-year Conclusions: Hip fractures exhibit higher mortality compared to female breast and thyroid cancers and male prostate cancer. More attention is needed to enhance the management and prevention of hip fractures.

Purpose: This study assessed the validity of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) risk-adjusted model by comparing models that include clinical information and the current model based on administrative information in South Korea. Materials and Methods: The data of 53976 inpatients were analyzed. The current HSMR risk-adjusted model (Model 1) adjusts for sex, age, health coverage, emergency hospitalization status, main diagnosis, surgery status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using administrative data. As candidate variables, among clinical information, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, present on admission CCI, and cancer stage were collected. Surgery status, intensive care in the intensive care unit, and CCI were selected as proxy variables among administrative data. In-hospital death was defined as the dependent variable, and a logistic regression analysis was performed. The statistical performance of each model was compared using C-index values. Results: There was a strong correlation between variables in the administrative data and those in the medical records. The C-index of the existing model (Model 1) was 0.785; Model 2, which included all clinical data, had a higher C-index of 0.857. In Model 4, in which APACHE II and SAPS 3 were replaced with variables recorded in the administrative data from Model 2, the C-index further increased to 0.863. Conclusion The HSMR assessment model improved when clinical data were adjusted. Simultaneously, the validity of the evaluation method could be secured even if some of the clinical information was replaced with the information in the administrative data.

Objectives: This study aimed to achieve expert consensus on menopause management in the Asia-Pacific region, taking into account patient diversity, the latest evidence, and current treatment options. Methods: A focused literature search was performed to identify clinical practice statements on menopause management. Menopause experts were nominated by members of the Asia-Pacific Menopause Federation (APMF) society. A modified Delphi methodology, involving iterative rounds of anonymous surveys, was employed until consensus was reached for each statement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% of experts voting ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ for a given clinical practice statement. Results: A total of 39 participants from 14 different APMF member societies were involved. Eighty-five clinical practice statements reached a consensus. Based on the clinical practice statements, an algorithm was created as a tool to guide clinicians on menopause management. APMF experts agreed that, in addition to vasomotor symptoms, Asian women experiencing somatic or psychological symptoms may also benefit from treatment with menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). MHT should also be considered for the prevention of osteoporosis in asymptomatic peri- and postmenopausal women. Conclusions This APMF consensus statement supersedes the previous one published in 2008. It provides guidance to gynecologists, endocrinologists, family physicians, and other healthcare professionals in delivering optimal care to menopausal women in the ethnically and culturally diverse Asia-Pacific region.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Background: The proportion of women doctors has been rising globally and South Korea mirrors this trend. Despite this growth, women doctors’ representation in leadership roles in academic medical fields remains scarce. This study investigates the representation and trends of women doctors’ leadership in editorial boards of South Korean medical journals, and compares the gender ratio of specialists. Methods: This non-clinical data analysis examined the editorial boards of 45 major medical academic journals published in 2015, 2020, and 2024 to investigate women leadership within journal editorial boards, compares the gender ratio of specialists, and observed changes over time. Results: The study included data from 1,475 members in 2015, 1,598 in 2020, and 2,531 in 2024.In 2020, 23.8% of specialists were women, but only 19.5% of editorial board members were women (P < 0.001). Nine journals had less than 10% women representation on their editorial boards. Over nine years, women representation on editorial boards increased from 16.8% in 2015 to 21.3% in 2024 (P = 0.001), with significant increases in societies of clinical medicine (14.6% vs. 20.0%; P < 0.001) but not in basic medicine. Journals with women editors-in-chief had significantly higher women representation on their boards compared to ones with male editorsin-chief (36.7 ± 13.5% vs. 18.4 ± 10.9%, P < 0.001). The proportion of women senior editorial roles and that of women executive society members showed a significant positive correlation with the proportion of women on editorial boards (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion The study highlights the considerable underrepresentation of women in editorial leadership compared to their presence as specialists. However, the number of women editorial board members has increased over the past decade, especially in clinical medicine. Women doctors’ leadership positively correlates with higher women participation on boards, which suggests that promoting women leaders could enhance gender diversity in academic medicine. Further qualitative research is needed to explore the impact of women doctors’ leadership on medical research and patient outcomes. This study provides critical insights into gender disparities in South Korean medical academia and underscores the need for policies to promote women doctors’ leadership.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Background: The proportion of women doctors has been rising globally and South Korea mirrors this trend. Despite this growth, women doctors’ representation in leadership roles in academic medical fields remains scarce. This study investigates the representation and trends of women doctors’ leadership in editorial boards of South Korean medical journals, and compares the gender ratio of specialists. Methods: This non-clinical data analysis examined the editorial boards of 45 major medical academic journals published in 2015, 2020, and 2024 to investigate women leadership within journal editorial boards, compares the gender ratio of specialists, and observed changes over time. Results: The study included data from 1,475 members in 2015, 1,598 in 2020, and 2,531 in 2024.In 2020, 23.8% of specialists were women, but only 19.5% of editorial board members were women (P < 0.001). Nine journals had less than 10% women representation on their editorial boards. Over nine years, women representation on editorial boards increased from 16.8% in 2015 to 21.3% in 2024 (P = 0.001), with significant increases in societies of clinical medicine (14.6% vs. 20.0%; P < 0.001) but not in basic medicine. Journals with women editors-in-chief had significantly higher women representation on their boards compared to ones with male editorsin-chief (36.7 ± 13.5% vs. 18.4 ± 10.9%, P < 0.001). The proportion of women senior editorial roles and that of women executive society members showed a significant positive correlation with the proportion of women on editorial boards (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion The study highlights the considerable underrepresentation of women in editorial leadership compared to their presence as specialists. However, the number of women editorial board members has increased over the past decade, especially in clinical medicine. Women doctors’ leadership positively correlates with higher women participation on boards, which suggests that promoting women leaders could enhance gender diversity in academic medicine. Further qualitative research is needed to explore the impact of women doctors’ leadership on medical research and patient outcomes. This study provides critical insights into gender disparities in South Korean medical academia and underscores the need for policies to promote women doctors’ leadership.

Purpose: The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups. Results: The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867). Conclusion The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.