Purpose: This study evaluated the early outcomes of hyperopic small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using the VisuMax 800 femtosecond laser in a South Korean cohort, focusing on safety, efficacy, refractive predictability, and centration accuracy. Methods: This retrospective study included 11 eyes from seven patients who underwent hyperopic SMILE using the VisuMax 800 between December 1, 2024, and October 31, 2025, at Onnuri Eye Hospital in Jeonju, South Korea. All eyes completed at least 3 months of postoperative follow-up. Preoperative and postoperative evaluations included uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refraction, tomography, and wavefront aberrometry. Outcomes were analyzed using the standard nine graphs for refractive surgery. Astigmatic changes were assessed using the Alpins vector method. Optical zone decentration was calculated using postoperative Placido-Scheimpflug topography. Results: The median preoperative spherical equivalent (SEQ) was +2.50 diopters (D) (interquartile range [IQR], 1.94–4.12 D). At 3 months, eight eyes (72.7%) were within ±0.50 D and all eyes (100%) were within ±1.00 D of the residual SEQ. The median efficacy index was 0.90 (IQR, 0.80–0.95). CDVA was unchanged in 63.6% of eyes and decreased by one line in 36.4%; no eye lost two or more lines. The median safety index was 0.86 (IQR, 0.80–1.00). Root mean square higher-order aberrations (RMS HOA) increased by +0.38 μm (IQR, 0.09–0.52 μm). The median vertex-based decentration was 0.064 mm (IQR, 0.036–0.091 mm). Decentration demonstrated a significant positive correlation with RMS HOA (rho = 0.709, p = 0.014). Conclusions Hyperopic SMILE using the VisuMax 800 produced favorable early clinical outcomes with high centration accuracy as well as shorter surgical time. Larger prospective studies with longer follow-up are necessary to determine long-term stability.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the degree of interest in robot-assisted spine surgery (RASS) among residents and to investigate the learning curve for beginners performing robotic surgery. Methods: We conducted a survey to assess awareness and interest in RASS among young neurosurgery residents. Subsequently, we offered a hands-on training program using a dummy to educate one resident. After completing the program, the trained resident performed spinal fusion surgery with robotic assistance under the supervision of a mentor. The clinical outcomes and learning curve associated with robotic surgery were then analyzed. Results: Neurosurgical residents had limited opportunities to participate in spinal surgery during their training. Despite this, there was a significant interest in the emerging field of robotic surgery. A trained resident performed RASS under the supervision of a senior surgeon. A total of 166 screw insertions were attempted in 28 patients, with 2 screws failing due to skiving. According to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification, 85.54% of the screws were rated as grade A, 11.58% as grade B, 0.6% as grade C, and 1.2% as grade D. The clinical acceptance rate was approximately 96.99%, which is comparable to the results reported by senior experts and time per screw statistically significantly decreased as experience was gained. Conclusion RASS can be performed with high accuracy within a relatively short timeframe, if residents receive adequate training.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the degree of interest in robot-assisted spine surgery (RASS) among residents and to investigate the learning curve for beginners performing robotic surgery. Methods: We conducted a survey to assess awareness and interest in RASS among young neurosurgery residents. Subsequently, we offered a hands-on training program using a dummy to educate one resident. After completing the program, the trained resident performed spinal fusion surgery with robotic assistance under the supervision of a mentor. The clinical outcomes and learning curve associated with robotic surgery were then analyzed. Results: Neurosurgical residents had limited opportunities to participate in spinal surgery during their training. Despite this, there was a significant interest in the emerging field of robotic surgery. A trained resident performed RASS under the supervision of a senior surgeon. A total of 166 screw insertions were attempted in 28 patients, with 2 screws failing due to skiving. According to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification, 85.54% of the screws were rated as grade A, 11.58% as grade B, 0.6% as grade C, and 1.2% as grade D. The clinical acceptance rate was approximately 96.99%, which is comparable to the results reported by senior experts and time per screw statistically significantly decreased as experience was gained. Conclusion RASS can be performed with high accuracy within a relatively short timeframe, if residents receive adequate training.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the degree of interest in robot-assisted spine surgery (RASS) among residents and to investigate the learning curve for beginners performing robotic surgery. Methods: We conducted a survey to assess awareness and interest in RASS among young neurosurgery residents. Subsequently, we offered a hands-on training program using a dummy to educate one resident. After completing the program, the trained resident performed spinal fusion surgery with robotic assistance under the supervision of a mentor. The clinical outcomes and learning curve associated with robotic surgery were then analyzed. Results: Neurosurgical residents had limited opportunities to participate in spinal surgery during their training. Despite this, there was a significant interest in the emerging field of robotic surgery. A trained resident performed RASS under the supervision of a senior surgeon. A total of 166 screw insertions were attempted in 28 patients, with 2 screws failing due to skiving. According to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification, 85.54% of the screws were rated as grade A, 11.58% as grade B, 0.6% as grade C, and 1.2% as grade D. The clinical acceptance rate was approximately 96.99%, which is comparable to the results reported by senior experts and time per screw statistically significantly decreased as experience was gained. Conclusion RASS can be performed with high accuracy within a relatively short timeframe, if residents receive adequate training.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the degree of interest in robot-assisted spine surgery (RASS) among residents and to investigate the learning curve for beginners performing robotic surgery. Methods: We conducted a survey to assess awareness and interest in RASS among young neurosurgery residents. Subsequently, we offered a hands-on training program using a dummy to educate one resident. After completing the program, the trained resident performed spinal fusion surgery with robotic assistance under the supervision of a mentor. The clinical outcomes and learning curve associated with robotic surgery were then analyzed. Results: Neurosurgical residents had limited opportunities to participate in spinal surgery during their training. Despite this, there was a significant interest in the emerging field of robotic surgery. A trained resident performed RASS under the supervision of a senior surgeon. A total of 166 screw insertions were attempted in 28 patients, with 2 screws failing due to skiving. According to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification, 85.54% of the screws were rated as grade A, 11.58% as grade B, 0.6% as grade C, and 1.2% as grade D. The clinical acceptance rate was approximately 96.99%, which is comparable to the results reported by senior experts and time per screw statistically significantly decreased as experience was gained. Conclusion RASS can be performed with high accuracy within a relatively short timeframe, if residents receive adequate training.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the degree of interest in robot-assisted spine surgery (RASS) among residents and to investigate the learning curve for beginners performing robotic surgery. Methods: We conducted a survey to assess awareness and interest in RASS among young neurosurgery residents. Subsequently, we offered a hands-on training program using a dummy to educate one resident. After completing the program, the trained resident performed spinal fusion surgery with robotic assistance under the supervision of a mentor. The clinical outcomes and learning curve associated with robotic surgery were then analyzed. Results: Neurosurgical residents had limited opportunities to participate in spinal surgery during their training. Despite this, there was a significant interest in the emerging field of robotic surgery. A trained resident performed RASS under the supervision of a senior surgeon. A total of 166 screw insertions were attempted in 28 patients, with 2 screws failing due to skiving. According to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification, 85.54% of the screws were rated as grade A, 11.58% as grade B, 0.6% as grade C, and 1.2% as grade D. The clinical acceptance rate was approximately 96.99%, which is comparable to the results reported by senior experts and time per screw statistically significantly decreased as experience was gained. Conclusion RASS can be performed with high accuracy within a relatively short timeframe, if residents receive adequate training.

Objective: : Recently, robotic-assisted spine surgery (RASS) has been considered a minimally invasive and relatively accurate method. In total, 495 robotic-assisted pedicle screw fixation (RAPSF) procedures were attempted on 100 patients during a 14-month period. The current study aimed to analyze the accuracy, potential risk factors, and learning curve of RAPSF. Methods: : This retrospective study evaluated the position of RAPSF using the Gertzbein and Robbins scale (GRS). The accuracy was analyzed using the ratio of the clinically acceptable group (GRS grades A and B), the dissatisfying group (GRS grades C, D, and E), and the Surgical Evaluation Assistant program. The RAPSF was divided into the no-breached group (GRS grade A) and breached group (GRS grades B, C, D, and E), and the potential risk factors of RAPSF were evaluated. The learning curve was analyzed by changes in robot-used time per screw and the occurrence tendency of breached and failed screws according to case accumulation. Results: : The clinically acceptable group in RAPSF was 98.12%. In the analysis using the Surgical Evaluation Assistant program, the tip offset was 2.37±1.89 mm, the tail offset was 3.09±1.90 mm, and the angular offset was 3.72°±2.72°. In the analysis of potential risk factors, the difference in screw fixation level (p=0.009) and segmental distance between the tracker and the instrumented level (p=0.001) between the no-breached and breached group were statistically significant, but not for the other factors. The mean difference between the no-breach and breach groups was statistically significant in terms of pedicle width (p<0.001) and tail offset (p=0.042). In the learning curve analysis, the occurrence of breached and failed screws and the robot-used time per screw screws showed a significant decreasing trend. Conclusion : In the current study, RAPSF was highly accurate and the specific potential risk factors were not identified. However, pedicle width was presumed to be related to breached screw. Meanwhile, the robot-used time per screw and the incidence of breached and failed screws decreased with the learning curve.

This report presents a rare case of a fungal infection following an anterior lateral interbody fusion (ALIF) procedure. A 73-year-old man with rheumatoid arthritis underwent ALIF for lumbar spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. After surgery, he experienced severe back pain. Radiological tests showed pseudoarthrosis, osteolysis, and signs of surgical site infection. Revision surgery using oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and an allo-bone graft was performed. This addressed the complications, removed the previous cage, and provided interbody support. The patient’s pain significantly decreased, and he recovered from an Aspergillus fumigatus infection after voriconazole treatment. Follow-up examinations confirmed the infection’s resolution and the maintenance of spinal stability. It is crucial to identify fungal infections in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. The case validates the efficacy of voriconazole efficacy in treating Aspergillus spondylitis and the safety and effectiveness of OLIF for ALIF revision surgery.

Objective: Fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (FGPSF) and its further development, robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (RAPSF), are minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) techniques. FGPSF is a standard technique at our hospital, and RAPSF incorporating artificial intelligence has been performed at our hospital since October 2021. This study compared these 2 techniques and analyzed their differences, accuracy, and clinical outcomes based on our experiences. Methods: This study conducted a detailed analysis of screw accuracy and the clinical outcomes of 2 MISS techniques, FGPSF, and RAPSF. Screw accuracy was evaluated using the Gertzbein and Robbins scale, categorizing placements into grades A–E, with grades A and B considered clinically acceptable. Accuracy was assessed using postoperative computed tomography images for FGPSF and intraoperative O-arm scan images for RAPSF. Clinical outcomes were compared by examining parameters, such as hospitalization duration, C-reactive protein (CRP) normalization period, estimated blood loss (EBL), and preoperative/postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Screw-related complications were reviewed. Independent image evaluations by nonparticipating spine specialists ensured objective and reliable assessments. Results: Both FGPSF and RAPSF demonstrated high rates of clinically acceptable screw placement, with minimal breaches that required no repositioning. The clinically acceptable rates of FGPSF and RAPSF were similar (99.17% and 99.19%, respectively). Both groups also demonstrated similar clinical outcomes. The CRP normalization period, EBL, and ΔVAS (preoperative—postoperative) scores revealed no statistically significant differences between FGPSF and RAPSF. Neither group experienced screw-related complications; however, the RAPSF group exhibited a statistically significant shorter hospital stay than the FGPSF group. Conclusion This study compared the accuracy and clinical outcomes of FGPSF and RAPSF. Both methods demonstrated no significant differences in accuracy or clinical outcomes. Spine surgeons selected between the 2 methods based on individual patient needs, and additional research is required to fully understand the practical advantages of each technique in the clinical field.

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of patients given an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) (Isopure; PhysIOL, Liege, Belgium), and monofocal, and trifocal IOLs. Methods: Patients who underwent cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of monofocal Vivinex IOLs, enhanced monofocal Isopure IOLs, and trifocal Panoptix IOLs were included. Three months postoperatively, the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), and near visual acuity (UNVA), as well as the spherical equivalent (SE) were determined. Photic symptoms were explored via a questionnaire. Results: The postoperative SE and UDVA did not differ significantly among the three groups (p = 0.100 and 0.204 respectively). The mean UIVAs (logMAR) were 0.61 ± 0.14, 0.3 ± 0.1, and 0.14 ± 0.11 in the Vivinex, Isopure, and Panoptix groups respectively. The Isopure group exhibited a significantly better UIVA than the Vivinex group (p < 0.001) and the Panoptix group exhibited a significantly better UIVA than either the Vivinex or Isopure group (p = 0.002 and < 0.001 respectively). The mean UNVAs (logMAR) were 0.68 ± 0.16, 0.57 ± 0.19, and 0.17 ± 0.12 for the Vivinex, Isopure, and Panoptix groups respectively. There was no significant UNVA difference between the Vivinex and Isopure groups (p = 0.185) but the UNVA of the Panoptix group was significantly better than the UNVAs of the Vivinex and Isopure groups (both p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in photic symptoms between the Vivinex and Isopure groups (p = 0.980); however, the Panoptix group evidenced significantly more severe symptoms than did the other two groups (p = 0.021 and 0.042 respectively). Conclusions Enhanced monofocal Isopure IOL showed superior intermediate vision compared to Vivinex monofocal IOL, and inferior intermediate and near visual acuity compared Panoptix trifocal IOL, but with fewer photic symptoms.