Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

This research group (forensic research via omics markers in environmental health vulnerable areas: FROM) aimed to develop biomarkers for exposure to environmental hazards and diseases, assess environmental diseases, and apply and verify these biomarkers in environmentally vulnerable areas. Environmentally vulnerable areas—including refineries, abandoned metal mines, coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, cement factories, and areas with high exposure to particulate matter—along with control areas, were selected for epidemiological investigations. A total of 1,157 adults, who had resided in these areas for over 10 years, were recruited between June 2021 and September 2023. Personal characteristics of the study participants were gathered through a survey. Biological samples, specifically blood and urine, were collected during the field investigations, separated under refrigerated conditions, and then transported to the laboratory for biomarker analysis. Analyses of heavy metals, environmental hazards, and adducts were conducted on these blood and urine samples. Additionally, omics analyses of epigenomes, proteomes, and metabolomes were performed using the blood samples. The biomarkers identified in this study will be utilized to assess the risk of environmental disease occurrence and to evaluate the impact on the health of residents in environmentally vulnerable areas, following the validation of diagnostic accuracy for these diseases.

This research group (forensic research via omics markers in environmental health vulnerable areas: FROM) aimed to develop biomarkers for exposure to environmental hazards and diseases, assess environmental diseases, and apply and verify these biomarkers in environmentally vulnerable areas. Environmentally vulnerable areas—including refineries, abandoned metal mines, coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, cement factories, and areas with high exposure to particulate matter—along with control areas, were selected for epidemiological investigations. A total of 1,157 adults, who had resided in these areas for over 10 years, were recruited between June 2021 and September 2023. Personal characteristics of the study participants were gathered through a survey. Biological samples, specifically blood and urine, were collected during the field investigations, separated under refrigerated conditions, and then transported to the laboratory for biomarker analysis. Analyses of heavy metals, environmental hazards, and adducts were conducted on these blood and urine samples. Additionally, omics analyses of epigenomes, proteomes, and metabolomes were performed using the blood samples. The biomarkers identified in this study will be utilized to assess the risk of environmental disease occurrence and to evaluate the impact on the health of residents in environmentally vulnerable areas, following the validation of diagnostic accuracy for these diseases.

This research group (forensic research via omics markers in environmental health vulnerable areas: FROM) aimed to develop biomarkers for exposure to environmental hazards and diseases, assess environmental diseases, and apply and verify these biomarkers in environmentally vulnerable areas. Environmentally vulnerable areas—including refineries, abandoned metal mines, coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, cement factories, and areas with high exposure to particulate matter—along with control areas, were selected for epidemiological investigations. A total of 1,157 adults, who had resided in these areas for over 10 years, were recruited between June 2021 and September 2023. Personal characteristics of the study participants were gathered through a survey. Biological samples, specifically blood and urine, were collected during the field investigations, separated under refrigerated conditions, and then transported to the laboratory for biomarker analysis. Analyses of heavy metals, environmental hazards, and adducts were conducted on these blood and urine samples. Additionally, omics analyses of epigenomes, proteomes, and metabolomes were performed using the blood samples. The biomarkers identified in this study will be utilized to assess the risk of environmental disease occurrence and to evaluate the impact on the health of residents in environmentally vulnerable areas, following the validation of diagnostic accuracy for these diseases.

This research group (forensic research via omics markers in environmental health vulnerable areas: FROM) aimed to develop biomarkers for exposure to environmental hazards and diseases, assess environmental diseases, and apply and verify these biomarkers in environmentally vulnerable areas. Environmentally vulnerable areas—including refineries, abandoned metal mines, coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, cement factories, and areas with high exposure to particulate matter—along with control areas, were selected for epidemiological investigations. A total of 1,157 adults, who had resided in these areas for over 10 years, were recruited between June 2021 and September 2023. Personal characteristics of the study participants were gathered through a survey. Biological samples, specifically blood and urine, were collected during the field investigations, separated under refrigerated conditions, and then transported to the laboratory for biomarker analysis. Analyses of heavy metals, environmental hazards, and adducts were conducted on these blood and urine samples. Additionally, omics analyses of epigenomes, proteomes, and metabolomes were performed using the blood samples. The biomarkers identified in this study will be utilized to assess the risk of environmental disease occurrence and to evaluate the impact on the health of residents in environmentally vulnerable areas, following the validation of diagnostic accuracy for these diseases.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the most effective treatment approach by comparing the impacts of various otolith reduction techniques in patients with apogeotropic lateral semicircular canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (LC-BPPV). Methods: We performed a multicenter randomized prospective study from January to December 2015, involving 72 consecutive patients with apogeotropic LC-BPPV. The patients were divided into three treatment groups: therapeutic head-shaking (group A), the Gufoni-Appiani maneuver (group B), and the cupulolith repositioning maneuver (CuRM; group C). Each group underwent evaluation and treatment up to the fourth week. Treatment success was defined as the disappearance of positional vertigo and nystagmus. Results: This study included 72 patients (49 male and 23 female), with a mean (±standard deviation) age of 55.4±13.5 years. The mean duration of vertigo experienced prior to treatment was 3.9±4.4 days. The mean latency and duration of nystagmus were 2.7±3.0 seconds and 47.9±15.8 seconds, respectively. The overall treatment frequency was 2.0±0.9. The number of treatments differed significantly among the three groups (P<0.05). After 4 weeks, the success rates for groups A, B, and C were 90.5%, 92.3%, and 100%, respectively. No significant difference was observed in the success rate across treatment methods and periods (P>0.05). However, CuRM was the only method with a 100% treatment success rate. Conclusion While no clear difference was observed among the three treatments for LC-BPPV, CuRM was found to be superior to the other approaches in the long term.