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.

Objective: This study evaluated the accuracy of the pre-hospital shock index multiplied by the AVPU scale (PSIAVPU) as a predictor of massive transfusion (MT) and traumatic coagulopathy. Methods: This research was a retrospective single-center study that included patients consecutively presenting to a trauma center between 2017 and 2020. The predictive value of the PSIAVPU for MT, in-hospital mortality, and traumatic coagulopathy was measured using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve. The AUC of the PSIAVPU was compared with the Reverse Shock Index multiplied by the Glasgow Coma Scale (rSIG) measured at the trauma center presentation. Results: One thousand seven hundred and ninety-two patients were included, of which 163 patients (9.09%) received MT and 195 patients (10.88%) died during their hospital stay. Traumatic coagulopathy was observed in 245 patients. The AUC values for the PSIAVPU in terms of predicting MT, hospital mortality, and traumatic coagulopathy were 0.755, 0.752, and 0.736, respectively. Conclusion In patients with trauma, the predictive power of the PSIAVPU was higher than that of the prehospital shock index and was comparable to that of the rSIG. The PSIAVPU is a useful indicator that can be used easily and quickly for trauma patients at the prehospital stage.

Purpose: Current faculty development (FD) programs are mostly limited to medical education and often lack a comprehensive and systematic structure. Therefore, the present study aimed to explore the current status and needs of FD programs in medical schools to provide a basis for establishing FD strategies. Methods: We conducted an online survey of medical school FD staff and professors regarding FD. Frequency, regression, and qualitative content analyses were conducted. FD programs were categorized into the classification frameworks. Results: A total of 17 FD staff and 256 professors at 37 medical schools participated. There are gaps between the internal and external FD programs offered by medical schools and their needs, and there are gaps between the programs the professors participated in and their needs. Recent internal and external FD programs in medical schools have focused on educational methods, student assessment, and education in general. Medical schools have a high need for leadership and self-development, and student assessment. Furthermore, professors have a high need for leadership and self-development, and research. The number of participants, topics, and needs of FD programs varied depending on the characteristics of individual professors. Conclusion Medical schools should expand their FD programs to meet the needs of individuals and the changing demands of modern medical education. The focus should be on comprehensive and responsive programs that cover various topics, levels, and methods. Tailored programs that consider professors’ professional roles, career stages, and personal interests are essential for effective FD.

Objective: Alcohol consumption is a frequent risk factor for trauma. The shock index is widely used to predict the prognosis of trauma, and alcohol can influence the shock index in several ways. This study investigated the usefulness of the shock index in trauma patients who had ingested alcohol. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational, single-center study. We performed a logistic regression analysis to assess the association between alcohol consumption and massive transfusions. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to determine the predictive value of the shock index for patients who had ingested alcohol. Results: A total of 5,128 patients were included in the study. The alcohol-positive group had lower systolic blood pressure and higher heart rate; consequently, the shock index in this group was higher. There was no significant difference between the proportion of the alcohol-positive and alcohol-negative groups who underwent massive transfusions and suffered hospital mortality compared to the overall proportion of patients who underwent massive transfusion based on the shock index. In the logistic regression analysis, the alcohol-negative group showed higher odds ratios for massive transfusions compared to the alcohol-positive group. The area under the ROC curve for predicting massive transfusion was 0.831 for the alcohol-positive group and 0.825 for the alcohol-negative group. However, when a cutoff value of 1 was used, the false positive rate was significantly higher in the alcohol-positive group. Conclusion The shock index is a useful tool for predicting outcomes in patients with trauma. However, in patients who have ingested alcohol, the shock index should be interpreted with caution.