Objective: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) often occurs alongside injuries to other body regions, worsening patient outcomes. This study evaluates the impact of concomitant injuries on clinical outcomes in patients with isolated versus non-isolated TBI. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the Emergency Department-based Injury In-depth Surveillance (EDIIS) for 180,058 TBI patients admitted to 23 tertiary hospitals from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022. Patients were categorized into isolated TBI group (iTBI; n=127,673) and non-isolated TBI group (niTBI; n=52,385) based on injury diagnostic codes. Clinical outcomes—24-hour and 30-day mortality, hospital admission, and interhospital transfer—were compared. Multivariate logistic regression analyses adjusted for potential confounders were performed. Results: The niTBI patients exhibited significantly higher 24-hour mortality (1.5% vs. 0.4%), 30-day mortality (2.6% vs. 1.0%), hospital admissions (24.5% vs. 8.4%), and interhospital transfers (3.6% vs. 1.1%) than iTBI patients (all P<0.001). Concomitant injuries increased the adjusted odds of 24-hour mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.456; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.286–1.648) and 30-day mortality (aOR, 1.111; 95% CI, 1.022–1.208). Thoracic injuries were the most significant predictor of adverse outcomes in niTBI patients, increasing the odds of 24-hour mortality by nearly sixfold (aOR, 5.958; 95% CI 5.057–7.019). Conclusions Concomitant injuries significantly worsen clinical outcomes in TBI patients, with thoracic injuries being the most critical predictor of mortality. These findings highlight the importance of comprehensive trauma assessments and targeted prevention strategies to improve survival rates and optimize resource allocation for patients with multiple injuries.

Objective: Agriculture is a hazardous industry. However, previous studies have focused on injuries to agricultural workers without comparison with injuries to nonagricultural workers. Therefore, we compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of injuries reported at an emergency department (ED) between agricultural workers and nonagricultural workers. Methods: We established a prospective ED-based agricultural injury surveillance system at a tertiary university hospital. Adult patients visiting the ED for an injury were divided into farmer and non-farmer groups depending on their engagement with agriculture. Using an adjusted multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (age, sex, inhabitant, and insurance type), we compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of injuries between the farmer and non-farmer groups. Results: In total, 38,556 injured adult patients (37,746 in the non-farmer group and 810 in the farmer group) were available for the unmatched sample analysis. The 1,620 matched subjects were equally classified after one-to-one nearest-neighbor propensity score matching. A multivariate logistic regression analysis of the unmatched sample revealed higher adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for intensive care unit admission (adjusted OR, 1.752; P=0.003) and overall surgery (adjusted OR, 1.870; P<0.001) in the farmer group. In contrast, univariate logistic regression analyses of the propensity score–matched sample found a higher OR in the farmer group only for overall surgery (OR, 1.786; P<0.001). Conclusion Injuries of agricultural workers had higher odds only of requiring surgery; differences in injury-related mortality between groups were not statistically significant in either the matched or unmatched sample analyses.

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.

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.

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.