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.

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.