1.The Effect of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol in Orthopedic Hip Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Dong Ha LEE ; Ji Wan KIM ; Chul-Ho KIM
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(3):389-399
Background:
The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol has garnered global attention for optimizing perioperative care. It holds significant potential for orthopedic hip surgery, especially in elderly patients requiring rehabilitation. However, largescale studies or meta-analyses specific to this field remain limited.
Methods:
A systematic search was performed using Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies assessing the effects of the ERAS protocol in hip surgery up to August 13, 2024. A double-arm meta-analysis was designed to compare perioperative outcomes, including postoperative pain scores, transfusion rates, medical and surgical complications, and length of hospital stay, between ERAS and control groups.
Results:
Twenty-one studies were systematically reviewed, and 13 were included in the pooled analysis, comprising 1,004 patients in the ERAS group and 1,159 in the control group. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that the ERAS protocol significantly improved postoperative pain management, reduced blood transfusion requirements, decreased medical complications, and shortened hospital stays compared to standard protocols.
Conclusions
This meta-analysis supports the hypothesis that the ERAS protocol enhances perioperative outcomes in orthopedic hip surgery.
2.Comparison of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring between propofol and remimazolam during total intravenous anesthesia in the cervical spine surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial
Myoung Hwa KIM ; Jinyoung PARK ; Yoon Ghil PARK ; Yong Eun CHO ; Dawoon KIM ; Dong Jun LEE ; Kyu Wan KWAK ; Jongyun LEE ; Dong Woo HAN
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology 2025;78(1):16-29
Background:
Although total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil is frequently used to optimize intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM), the exact effect of remimazolam on IONM remains unknown. Here, we compared the effects of propofol and remimazolam along with remifentanil on IONM during TIVA.
Methods:
In this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 64 patients requiring IONM during cervical spine surgery were administered either propofol (Group P) or remimazolam (Group R). The preoperative latencies of the somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEP; N20 for the median nerve and P37 for the tibial nerve) were measured. SEP latencies and amplitudes and motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes were measured 30 min after anesthetic induction (T1), 30 min after surgical incision (T2), after laminectomy or discectomy (T3), immediately after plate insertion or pedicle screw fixation (T4), and before surgical wound closure (T5). The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the N20 latency changes measured at T1 and preoperatively.
Results:
The change in SEP latencies including N20 and P37 at T1 compared with preoperative time was not significantly different between Groups P and R. Except for the amplitude of the right abductor brevis, there was no significant group-by-time interaction effect for intraoperative MEP amplitudes or SEP latencies and amplitudes.
Conclusions
TIVA with remimazolam and remifentanil for cervical spine surgery yielded stable IONM, comparable to those observed with conventional TIVA with propofol and remifentanil. Further clinical trials are needed in other surgical contexts and with more diverse patient populations to determine the effects of remimazolam on IONM.
3.The Effect of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol in Orthopedic Hip Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Dong Ha LEE ; Ji Wan KIM ; Chul-Ho KIM
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(3):389-399
Background:
The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol has garnered global attention for optimizing perioperative care. It holds significant potential for orthopedic hip surgery, especially in elderly patients requiring rehabilitation. However, largescale studies or meta-analyses specific to this field remain limited.
Methods:
A systematic search was performed using Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies assessing the effects of the ERAS protocol in hip surgery up to August 13, 2024. A double-arm meta-analysis was designed to compare perioperative outcomes, including postoperative pain scores, transfusion rates, medical and surgical complications, and length of hospital stay, between ERAS and control groups.
Results:
Twenty-one studies were systematically reviewed, and 13 were included in the pooled analysis, comprising 1,004 patients in the ERAS group and 1,159 in the control group. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that the ERAS protocol significantly improved postoperative pain management, reduced blood transfusion requirements, decreased medical complications, and shortened hospital stays compared to standard protocols.
Conclusions
This meta-analysis supports the hypothesis that the ERAS protocol enhances perioperative outcomes in orthopedic hip surgery.
4.Comparison of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring between propofol and remimazolam during total intravenous anesthesia in the cervical spine surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial
Myoung Hwa KIM ; Jinyoung PARK ; Yoon Ghil PARK ; Yong Eun CHO ; Dawoon KIM ; Dong Jun LEE ; Kyu Wan KWAK ; Jongyun LEE ; Dong Woo HAN
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology 2025;78(1):16-29
Background:
Although total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil is frequently used to optimize intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM), the exact effect of remimazolam on IONM remains unknown. Here, we compared the effects of propofol and remimazolam along with remifentanil on IONM during TIVA.
Methods:
In this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 64 patients requiring IONM during cervical spine surgery were administered either propofol (Group P) or remimazolam (Group R). The preoperative latencies of the somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEP; N20 for the median nerve and P37 for the tibial nerve) were measured. SEP latencies and amplitudes and motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes were measured 30 min after anesthetic induction (T1), 30 min after surgical incision (T2), after laminectomy or discectomy (T3), immediately after plate insertion or pedicle screw fixation (T4), and before surgical wound closure (T5). The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the N20 latency changes measured at T1 and preoperatively.
Results:
The change in SEP latencies including N20 and P37 at T1 compared with preoperative time was not significantly different between Groups P and R. Except for the amplitude of the right abductor brevis, there was no significant group-by-time interaction effect for intraoperative MEP amplitudes or SEP latencies and amplitudes.
Conclusions
TIVA with remimazolam and remifentanil for cervical spine surgery yielded stable IONM, comparable to those observed with conventional TIVA with propofol and remifentanil. Further clinical trials are needed in other surgical contexts and with more diverse patient populations to determine the effects of remimazolam on IONM.
5.Combination of intrarectal heated lidocaine gel and periprostatic nerve block for pain control during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A prospective randomized trial
Jung Im KIM ; Dong Wan SOHN ; Bong Hee PARK
Investigative and Clinical Urology 2025;66(2):130-136
Purpose:
To investigate the role of combined periprostatic nerve block (PNB) and intrarectal local anesthesia with heated lidocaine gel (ILAHL) in reducing pain during transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy, compared with PNB alone.
Materials and Methods:
We performed a prospective randomized trial with 140 participants who underwent systematic TRUS-guid ed, 12-core prostate biopsy from July 2021 to June 2022. These participants were divided into two groups. Before prostate biopsy, group 1 (n=70) received PNB and group 2 (n=70) received PNB combined intrarectal local anesthesia with 20 mL of heated (40ºC) 2% lidocaine gel. The primary outcome was pain score on a 0–10 visual analogue scale (VAS) at four time points (VAS A: during local anesthesia procedure, VAS B: during probe insertion, VAS C: during biopsy procedure, VAS D: 30 minutes after biopsy). The secondary outcome included adverse events during and after the procedure.
Results:
Mean pain scores were significantly lower in group 2 than in group 1 at VAS A (2.53 vs. 1.60, p=0.001) and VAS B (2.47 vs.1.49, p<0.001). The mean VAS C pain score in group 2 was significantly less than in group 1 (3.07 vs. 2.20, p=0.001), while there was no significant difference in the mean VAS D pain score between two groups (1.06 vs. 0.89, p=0.318). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of complications in both groups.
Conclusions
The combination of PNB and ILAHL provides more effective pain control than PNB alone without increase of complication rates in patients undergoing TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.
6.The Effect of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol in Orthopedic Hip Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Dong Ha LEE ; Ji Wan KIM ; Chul-Ho KIM
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(3):389-399
Background:
The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol has garnered global attention for optimizing perioperative care. It holds significant potential for orthopedic hip surgery, especially in elderly patients requiring rehabilitation. However, largescale studies or meta-analyses specific to this field remain limited.
Methods:
A systematic search was performed using Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies assessing the effects of the ERAS protocol in hip surgery up to August 13, 2024. A double-arm meta-analysis was designed to compare perioperative outcomes, including postoperative pain scores, transfusion rates, medical and surgical complications, and length of hospital stay, between ERAS and control groups.
Results:
Twenty-one studies were systematically reviewed, and 13 were included in the pooled analysis, comprising 1,004 patients in the ERAS group and 1,159 in the control group. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that the ERAS protocol significantly improved postoperative pain management, reduced blood transfusion requirements, decreased medical complications, and shortened hospital stays compared to standard protocols.
Conclusions
This meta-analysis supports the hypothesis that the ERAS protocol enhances perioperative outcomes in orthopedic hip surgery.
7.The Effect of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol in Orthopedic Hip Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Dong Ha LEE ; Ji Wan KIM ; Chul-Ho KIM
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(3):389-399
Background:
The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol has garnered global attention for optimizing perioperative care. It holds significant potential for orthopedic hip surgery, especially in elderly patients requiring rehabilitation. However, largescale studies or meta-analyses specific to this field remain limited.
Methods:
A systematic search was performed using Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies assessing the effects of the ERAS protocol in hip surgery up to August 13, 2024. A double-arm meta-analysis was designed to compare perioperative outcomes, including postoperative pain scores, transfusion rates, medical and surgical complications, and length of hospital stay, between ERAS and control groups.
Results:
Twenty-one studies were systematically reviewed, and 13 were included in the pooled analysis, comprising 1,004 patients in the ERAS group and 1,159 in the control group. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that the ERAS protocol significantly improved postoperative pain management, reduced blood transfusion requirements, decreased medical complications, and shortened hospital stays compared to standard protocols.
Conclusions
This meta-analysis supports the hypothesis that the ERAS protocol enhances perioperative outcomes in orthopedic hip surgery.
8.Comparison of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring between propofol and remimazolam during total intravenous anesthesia in the cervical spine surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial
Myoung Hwa KIM ; Jinyoung PARK ; Yoon Ghil PARK ; Yong Eun CHO ; Dawoon KIM ; Dong Jun LEE ; Kyu Wan KWAK ; Jongyun LEE ; Dong Woo HAN
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology 2025;78(1):16-29
Background:
Although total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil is frequently used to optimize intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM), the exact effect of remimazolam on IONM remains unknown. Here, we compared the effects of propofol and remimazolam along with remifentanil on IONM during TIVA.
Methods:
In this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 64 patients requiring IONM during cervical spine surgery were administered either propofol (Group P) or remimazolam (Group R). The preoperative latencies of the somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEP; N20 for the median nerve and P37 for the tibial nerve) were measured. SEP latencies and amplitudes and motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes were measured 30 min after anesthetic induction (T1), 30 min after surgical incision (T2), after laminectomy or discectomy (T3), immediately after plate insertion or pedicle screw fixation (T4), and before surgical wound closure (T5). The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the N20 latency changes measured at T1 and preoperatively.
Results:
The change in SEP latencies including N20 and P37 at T1 compared with preoperative time was not significantly different between Groups P and R. Except for the amplitude of the right abductor brevis, there was no significant group-by-time interaction effect for intraoperative MEP amplitudes or SEP latencies and amplitudes.
Conclusions
TIVA with remimazolam and remifentanil for cervical spine surgery yielded stable IONM, comparable to those observed with conventional TIVA with propofol and remifentanil. Further clinical trials are needed in other surgical contexts and with more diverse patient populations to determine the effects of remimazolam on IONM.
9.Comparison of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring between propofol and remimazolam during total intravenous anesthesia in the cervical spine surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial
Myoung Hwa KIM ; Jinyoung PARK ; Yoon Ghil PARK ; Yong Eun CHO ; Dawoon KIM ; Dong Jun LEE ; Kyu Wan KWAK ; Jongyun LEE ; Dong Woo HAN
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology 2025;78(1):16-29
Background:
Although total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil is frequently used to optimize intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM), the exact effect of remimazolam on IONM remains unknown. Here, we compared the effects of propofol and remimazolam along with remifentanil on IONM during TIVA.
Methods:
In this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 64 patients requiring IONM during cervical spine surgery were administered either propofol (Group P) or remimazolam (Group R). The preoperative latencies of the somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEP; N20 for the median nerve and P37 for the tibial nerve) were measured. SEP latencies and amplitudes and motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes were measured 30 min after anesthetic induction (T1), 30 min after surgical incision (T2), after laminectomy or discectomy (T3), immediately after plate insertion or pedicle screw fixation (T4), and before surgical wound closure (T5). The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the N20 latency changes measured at T1 and preoperatively.
Results:
The change in SEP latencies including N20 and P37 at T1 compared with preoperative time was not significantly different between Groups P and R. Except for the amplitude of the right abductor brevis, there was no significant group-by-time interaction effect for intraoperative MEP amplitudes or SEP latencies and amplitudes.
Conclusions
TIVA with remimazolam and remifentanil for cervical spine surgery yielded stable IONM, comparable to those observed with conventional TIVA with propofol and remifentanil. Further clinical trials are needed in other surgical contexts and with more diverse patient populations to determine the effects of remimazolam on IONM.
10.Lazertinib versus Gefitinib as First-Line Treatment for EGFR-mutated Locally Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC: LASER301 Korean Subset
Ki Hyeong LEE ; Byoung Chul CHO ; Myung-Ju AHN ; Yun-Gyoo LEE ; Youngjoo LEE ; Jong-Seok LEE ; Joo-Hang KIM ; Young Joo MIN ; Gyeong-Won LEE ; Sung Sook LEE ; Kyung-Hee LEE ; Yoon Ho KO ; Byoung Yong SHIM ; Sang-We KIM ; Sang Won SHIN ; Jin-Hyuk CHOI ; Dong-Wan KIM ; Eun Kyung CHO ; Keon Uk PARK ; Jin-Soo KIM ; Sang Hoon CHUN ; Jangyoung WANG ; SeokYoung CHOI ; Jin Hyoung KANG
Cancer Research and Treatment 2024;56(1):48-60
Purpose:
This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Materials and Methods:
Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS).
Results:
In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib.
Conclusion
Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail