1.Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Using 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Cages Compared With Open TLIF: A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Fusion Rates
Sang Hyub LEE ; Junghan SEO ; Dain JEONG ; Sang Youp HAN ; Dong Hyun LEE ; Jae-Won JANG ; Dong-Geun LEE ; Choon Keun PARK
Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique 2026;11(Suppl 1):S28-S40
Objective:
Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) has emerged as an alternative to open TLIF. However, limited evidence is available regarding the application of 3-dimensional (3D)-printed titanium cages in UBE-TLIF. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and fusion rates of UBE-TLIF and open TLIF using 3D-printed titanium cages.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent single-level TLIF with 3D-printed titanium cages between 2021 and 2023. The inclusion criterion was degenerative lumbar stenosis, while the exclusion criteria were trauma, infection, and multilevel surgery. Clinical and radiologic outcomes were compared between the UBE-TLIF and open TLIF groups.
Results:
Twenty-one patients underwent UBE-TLIF, and 21 underwent open TLIF. The visual analogue scale (VAS) for back (p=0.987) and leg pain (p=0.731) did not significantly differ between the groups at 1-year follow-up. However, VAS back pain at postoperative day 2 was significantly lower in the UBE-TLIF group than in the open TLIF group (p<0.001). Solid fusion was achieved in 21 patients (100%) in the open TLIF group and in 20 (95.2%) in the UBE-TLIF group (p=1.000). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, body mass index was the only factor that exhibited a significant relationship (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53–0.92; p=0.011) with interbody fusion. In contrast, the surgical method (UBE vs. open TLIF) was not a significant factor (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.10–2.21; p=0.337).
Conclusion
Using a 3D-printed titanium cage for UBE-TLIF may yield comparable fusion rates to those of open TLIF.
2.Comparative perioperative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic ArtiSential versus da Vinci SP platform for totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair:a multi-institutional, propensity score-matched analysis in Korea
In Kyeong KIM ; Moonjin KIM ; Ji-Yeon MOON ; Ri Na YOO ; Jumyeong SONG ; Chaedong LIM ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Tae Gyu KIM ; Young Sun CHOI ; Dong Geun LEE ; Chul Seung LEE
Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery 2026;29(1):3-10
Purpose:
This study aimed to compare perioperative and postoperative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic articulated instrument-assisted versus da Vinci SP-assisted totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair using a propensity score-matched multi-institutional cohort.
Methods:
Between April 2022 and July 2025, 221 patients underwent TEP unilateral inguinal hernia repair at four institutions. Among them, 33 patients underwent da Vinci SP-assisted repair (Intuitive Surgical) and 188 underwent single-port laparoscopy using the articulated instrument, ArtiSential (LivsMed). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio based on demographic and clinical variables, resulting in 30 matched patients in each group. Perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications were analyzed.
Results:
After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups.Operative time was significantly longer in the da Vinci SP group than in the ArtiSential group (median [interquartile range], 82.0 [67.5–105.0] vs. 35.0 [28.5–47.5] minutes; p < 0.001). No open conversions occurred, and conversions to transabdominal preperitoneal repair were rare and comparable. Mesh size selection differed significantly, with smaller meshes more frequently used in the da Vinci SP group (p < 0.001). Postoperative outcomes, including length of hospital stay, overall complication rates, chronic pain, and recurrence, were similar between the groups. No major complications, readmissions, or reoperations were observed.
Conclusion
Articulated instrument-assisted TEP inguinal hernia repair demonstrated a significantly shorter operative time than da Vinci SP-assisted repair, while perioperative safety and postoperative outcomes were comparable.
3.Far-Lateral Transforaminal Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Upper Lumbar Disc Herniations
Jin Seop HWANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Dain JEONG ; Jae-Won JANG ; Yong Eun CHO ; Dong-Geun LEE ; Choon Keun PARK ; Chung Kee CHOUGH
Neurospine 2025;22(1):14-27
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.
4.Far-Lateral Transforaminal Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Upper Lumbar Disc Herniations
Jin Seop HWANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Dain JEONG ; Jae-Won JANG ; Yong Eun CHO ; Dong-Geun LEE ; Choon Keun PARK ; Chung Kee CHOUGH
Neurospine 2025;22(1):14-27
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.
5.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
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.
6.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
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.
7.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
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.
8.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
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.
9.O-arm navigation-based transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation: an innovative preliminary study
Dong Hyun LEE ; Choon Keun PARK ; Jin-Sung KIM ; Jin Sub HWANG ; Jin Young LEE ; Dong-Geun LEE ; Jae-Won JANG ; Jun Yong KIM ; Yong-Eun CHO ; Dong Chan LEE
Asian Spine Journal 2025;19(2):194-204
Methods:
The UBE approach targeted the ventral part of the superior articular process in the transforaminal UBE setup, specifically for upper lumbar disc herniation, with an approach angle of approximately 30º on the axial plane. Intraoperative navigation was employed to improve puncture accuracy for this relatively unfamiliar surgical technique. Navigation-assisted transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy was performed on four patients presenting with back or leg discomfort due to disc herniation at the L1–L2 or L2–L3 levels.
Results:
All patients experienced symptom relief and were discharged on postoperative day 2.
Conclusions
Transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy is a viable therapeutic option for upper lumbar paracentral disc herniation, which is typically associated with poor prognosis. Integrating navigation integration into this novel approach enhances precision and safety.
10.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
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.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail