Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

Objective: To determine the clinical impact of the baseline sagittal imbalance severity in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent ≥ 5-level fusion including the pelvis, for ASD with a ≥ 2-year follow-up. Using the Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab classification system, patients were classified into 3 groups according to the severity of the preoperative sagittal imbalance: mild, moderate, and severe. Postoperative clinical and radiographic results were compared among the 3 groups. Results: A total of 259 patients were finally included. There were 42, 62, and 155 patients in the mild, moderate, and severe groups, respectively. The perioperative surgical burden was greatest in the severe group. Postoperatively, this group also showed the largest pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch, suggesting a tendency towards undercorrection. No statistically significant differences were observed in proximal junctional kyphosis, proximal junctional failure, or rod fractures among the groups. Visual analogue scale for back pain and Scoliosis Research Society-22 scores were similar across groups. However, severe group’s last follow-up Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores significantly lower than those of the severe group. Conclusion Patients with severe sagittal imbalance were treated with more invasive surgical methods along with increased the perioperative surgical burden. All patients exhibited significant radiological and clinical improvements after surgery. However, regarding ODI, the severe group demonstrated slightly worse clinical outcomes than the other groups, probably due to relatively higher proportion of undercorrection. Therefore, more rigorous correction is necessary to achieve optimal sagittal alignment specifically in patients with severe baseline sagittal imbalance.

Objective: To determine the clinical impact of the baseline sagittal imbalance severity in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent ≥ 5-level fusion including the pelvis, for ASD with a ≥ 2-year follow-up. Using the Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab classification system, patients were classified into 3 groups according to the severity of the preoperative sagittal imbalance: mild, moderate, and severe. Postoperative clinical and radiographic results were compared among the 3 groups. Results: A total of 259 patients were finally included. There were 42, 62, and 155 patients in the mild, moderate, and severe groups, respectively. The perioperative surgical burden was greatest in the severe group. Postoperatively, this group also showed the largest pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch, suggesting a tendency towards undercorrection. No statistically significant differences were observed in proximal junctional kyphosis, proximal junctional failure, or rod fractures among the groups. Visual analogue scale for back pain and Scoliosis Research Society-22 scores were similar across groups. However, severe group’s last follow-up Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores significantly lower than those of the severe group. Conclusion Patients with severe sagittal imbalance were treated with more invasive surgical methods along with increased the perioperative surgical burden. All patients exhibited significant radiological and clinical improvements after surgery. However, regarding ODI, the severe group demonstrated slightly worse clinical outcomes than the other groups, probably due to relatively higher proportion of undercorrection. Therefore, more rigorous correction is necessary to achieve optimal sagittal alignment specifically in patients with severe baseline sagittal imbalance.

Objective: To determine the clinical impact of the baseline sagittal imbalance severity in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent ≥ 5-level fusion including the pelvis, for ASD with a ≥ 2-year follow-up. Using the Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab classification system, patients were classified into 3 groups according to the severity of the preoperative sagittal imbalance: mild, moderate, and severe. Postoperative clinical and radiographic results were compared among the 3 groups. Results: A total of 259 patients were finally included. There were 42, 62, and 155 patients in the mild, moderate, and severe groups, respectively. The perioperative surgical burden was greatest in the severe group. Postoperatively, this group also showed the largest pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch, suggesting a tendency towards undercorrection. No statistically significant differences were observed in proximal junctional kyphosis, proximal junctional failure, or rod fractures among the groups. Visual analogue scale for back pain and Scoliosis Research Society-22 scores were similar across groups. However, severe group’s last follow-up Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores significantly lower than those of the severe group. Conclusion Patients with severe sagittal imbalance were treated with more invasive surgical methods along with increased the perioperative surgical burden. All patients exhibited significant radiological and clinical improvements after surgery. However, regarding ODI, the severe group demonstrated slightly worse clinical outcomes than the other groups, probably due to relatively higher proportion of undercorrection. Therefore, more rigorous correction is necessary to achieve optimal sagittal alignment specifically in patients with severe baseline sagittal imbalance.

Purpose: Due to the shortage of lung donors relative to the number of patients waiting for lung transplantation (LTx), more than one-third of patients on the waitlist have died without receiving LTx in Korea. Therefore, the importance of fair and effective allocation policies has been emphasized. This study investigated the characteristics of the current urgency-based allocation system in Korea by simulating the Eurotransplant lung allocation score (ET-LAS) using a nationwide multi-institutional registry for LTx in Korea. Materials and Methods: This study used data from the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry (KOTRY), along with additional retrospective data for ET-LAS calculation. A total of 194 patients were included in this study between January 2015 and December 2019. The Korean urgency definition classifies an LTx candidate as having statuses 0–3 according to urgency. The ET-LAS was analyzed according to the Korean urgency status. Results: In total, 92 patients received lung transplants at status 0, 85 at status 1, and 17 at status 2/3. The ET-LAS showed a bimodal distribution with distinct peaks corresponding to status 0 and non-status 0. There was no significant difference in the ET-LAS among non-status 0 patients. In logistic and decision tree analyses, oxygen supplementation methods, particularly oxygen masks and high-flow nasal cannulas, were significantly associated with a high ET-LAS (≥50) among non-status 0 patients. Conclusion Simulation of the ET-LAS with KOTRY data showed that the Korean urgency definition may not allocate lungs by urgency, especially for patients in non-status 0; therefore, it needs to be revised.

Objective: To determine the clinical impact of the baseline sagittal imbalance severity in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent ≥ 5-level fusion including the pelvis, for ASD with a ≥ 2-year follow-up. Using the Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab classification system, patients were classified into 3 groups according to the severity of the preoperative sagittal imbalance: mild, moderate, and severe. Postoperative clinical and radiographic results were compared among the 3 groups. Results: A total of 259 patients were finally included. There were 42, 62, and 155 patients in the mild, moderate, and severe groups, respectively. The perioperative surgical burden was greatest in the severe group. Postoperatively, this group also showed the largest pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch, suggesting a tendency towards undercorrection. No statistically significant differences were observed in proximal junctional kyphosis, proximal junctional failure, or rod fractures among the groups. Visual analogue scale for back pain and Scoliosis Research Society-22 scores were similar across groups. However, severe group’s last follow-up Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores significantly lower than those of the severe group. Conclusion Patients with severe sagittal imbalance were treated with more invasive surgical methods along with increased the perioperative surgical burden. All patients exhibited significant radiological and clinical improvements after surgery. However, regarding ODI, the severe group demonstrated slightly worse clinical outcomes than the other groups, probably due to relatively higher proportion of undercorrection. Therefore, more rigorous correction is necessary to achieve optimal sagittal alignment specifically in patients with severe baseline sagittal imbalance.