Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases has been regularly publishing guidelines for adult immunization since 2007. Following the release of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination recommendations in 2023, significant changes have occurred due to the emergence of new variant strains and the waning immunity from previous vaccinations. This article provides a comprehensive update as of November 2024, incorporating the latest evidence and guidelines. Focusing on the 2024–2025 season, this article reviews vaccines currently authorized in Korea and assesses their effectiveness against the predominant JN.1 lineage variants. The updated recommendations prioritize high-risk groups, including adults aged 65 and older, individuals with underlying medical conditions, residents of facilities vulnerable to infection, pregnant women, and healthcare workers, for vaccination with updated vaccines targeting the JN.1 strain. Additionally, COVID-19 vaccination is available for all individuals aged 6 months and older. For most adults, a single-dose strategy is emphasized, while tailored schedules may be recommended for immunocompromised individuals. This update aims to optimize vaccination strategies in Korea to ensure comprehensive protection for high-risk populations.

The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases has been regularly publishing guidelines for adult immunization since 2007. Following the release of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination recommendations in 2023, significant changes have occurred due to the emergence of new variant strains and the waning immunity from previous vaccinations. This article provides a comprehensive update as of November 2024, incorporating the latest evidence and guidelines. Focusing on the 2024–2025 season, this article reviews vaccines currently authorized in Korea and assesses their effectiveness against the predominant JN.1 lineage variants. The updated recommendations prioritize high-risk groups, including adults aged 65 and older, individuals with underlying medical conditions, residents of facilities vulnerable to infection, pregnant women, and healthcare workers, for vaccination with updated vaccines targeting the JN.1 strain. Additionally, COVID-19 vaccination is available for all individuals aged 6 months and older. For most adults, a single-dose strategy is emphasized, while tailored schedules may be recommended for immunocompromised individuals. This update aims to optimize vaccination strategies in Korea to ensure comprehensive protection for high-risk populations.

The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases has been regularly developing guidelines for adult immunization since 2007. In 2023, the guidelines for the following seven vaccines were revised: influenza, herpes zoster, pneumococcal, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis (Tdap), human papillomavirus (HPV), meningococcal, and rabies vaccines. For the influenza vaccine, a recommendation for enhanced vaccines for the elderly was added. For the herpes zoster vaccine, a recommendation for the recombinant zoster vaccine was added. For the pneumococcal vaccine, the current status of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 20-valent PCV was described. For the Tdap vaccine, the possibility of using Tdap instead of tetanus-diphtheria vaccine was described. For the HPV vaccine, the expansion of the eligible age for vaccination was described. For the meningococcal vaccine, a recommendation for the meningococcal B vaccine was added. For the rabies vaccine, the number of pre-exposure prophylaxis doses was changed. This manuscript documents the summary and rationale of the revisions for the seven vaccines. For the vaccines not mentioned in this manuscript, the recommendations in the 3rd edition of the Vaccinations for Adults textbook shall remain in effect.

Purpose: The original eCura system was designed to stratify the risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) after endoscopic resection (ER) in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC).We assessed the effectiveness of a modified eCura system for reflecting the characteristics of undifferentiated-type (UD)-EGC. Materials and Methods: Six hundred thirty-four patients who underwent non-curative ER for UD-EGC and received either additional surgery (radical surgery group; n=270) or no further treatment (no additional treatment group; n=364) from 18 institutions between 2005 and 2015 were retrospectively included in this study. The eCuraU system assigned 1 point each for tumors >20 mm in size, ulceration, positive vertical margin, and submucosal invasion <500 µm; 2 points for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm; and 3 points for lymphovascular invasion. Results: LNM rates in the radical surgery group were 1.1%, 5.4%, and 13.3% for the low-(0–1 point), intermediate- (2–3 points), and high-risk (4–8 points), respectively (P-fortrend<0.001). The eCuraU system showed a significantly higher probability of identifying patients with LNM as high-risk than the eCura system (66.7% vs. 22.2%; McNemar P<0.001).In the no additional treatment group, overall survival (93.4%, 87.2%, and 67.6% at 5 years) and cancer-specific survival (99.6%, 98.9%, and 92.9% at 5 years) differed significantly among the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories, respectively (both P<0.001). In the high-risk category, surgery outperformed no treatment in terms of overall mortality (hazard ratio, 3.26; P=0.015). Conclusions The eCuraU system stratified the risk of LNM in patients with UD-EGC after ER. It is strongly recommended that high-risk patients undergo additional surgery.