Multiple myeloma (MM), a hematological malignancy, is characterized by malignant plasma cell proliferation in the bone marrow. Recent treatment advances have significantly improved patient outcomes associated with MM.In this study, we aimed to develop comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treat‑ ment of MM. We identified 12 key clinical questions essential for MM management, guiding the extensive literature review and meta-analysis of the study. Our guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations by integrating patient preferences with survey data. These recommendations include current and emerging diagnostic tools, thera‑ peutic agents, and treatment strategies. By prioritizing a patient-centered approach and rigorous data analysis, these guidelines were developed to enhance MM management, both in Korea and globally.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

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.

Background: A healthcare system’s collapse due to a pandemic, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can expose healthcare workers (HCWs) to various mental health problems. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the depression and anxiety of HCWs. Methods: A nationwide questionnaire-based survey was conducted on HCWs who worked in healthcare facilities and public health centers in Korea in December 2020. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) were used to measure depression and anxiety. To investigate factors associated with depression and anxiety, stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: A total of 1,425 participating HCWs were included. The mean depression score (PHQ-9) of HCWs before and after COVID-19 increased from 2.37 to 5.39, and the mean anxiety score (GAD-7) increased from 1.41 to 3.41. The proportion of HCWs with moderate to severe depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) increased from 3.8% before COVID-19 to 19.5% after COVID-19, whereas that of HCWs with moderate to severe anxiety (GAD-7 ≥ 10) increased from 2.0% to 10.1%. In our study, insomnia, chronic fatigue symptoms and physical symptoms after COVID-19, anxiety score (GAD-7) after COVID-19, living alone, and exhaustion were positively correlated with depression. Furthermore, post-traumatic stress symptoms, stress score (Global Assessment of Recent Stress), depression score (PHQ-9) after COVID-19, and exhaustion were positively correlated with anxiety. Conclusion In Korea, during the COVID-19 pandemic, HCWs commonly suffered from mental health problems, including depression and anxiety. Regularly checking the physical and mental health problems of HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial, and social support and strategy are needed to reduce the heavy workload and psychological distress of HCWs.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: This study evaluated the accuracy of the pre-hospital shock index multiplied by the AVPU scale (PSIAVPU) as a predictor of massive transfusion (MT) and traumatic coagulopathy. Methods: This research was a retrospective single-center study that included patients consecutively presenting to a trauma center between 2017 and 2020. The predictive value of the PSIAVPU for MT, in-hospital mortality, and traumatic coagulopathy was measured using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve. The AUC of the PSIAVPU was compared with the Reverse Shock Index multiplied by the Glasgow Coma Scale (rSIG) measured at the trauma center presentation. Results: One thousand seven hundred and ninety-two patients were included, of which 163 patients (9.09%) received MT and 195 patients (10.88%) died during their hospital stay. Traumatic coagulopathy was observed in 245 patients. The AUC values for the PSIAVPU in terms of predicting MT, hospital mortality, and traumatic coagulopathy were 0.755, 0.752, and 0.736, respectively. Conclusion In patients with trauma, the predictive power of the PSIAVPU was higher than that of the prehospital shock index and was comparable to that of the rSIG. The PSIAVPU is a useful indicator that can be used easily and quickly for trauma patients at the prehospital stage.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Background: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) based on computed tomography (CT) has been shown to better identify ischemia-causing coronary stenosis. However, this current technology requires high computational power, which inhibits its widespread implementation in clinical practice. This prospective, multicenter study aimed at validating the diagnostic performance of a novel simple CT based fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) calculation method in patients with coronary artery disease. Methods: Patients who underwent coronary CT angiography (CCTA) within 90 days and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) were prospectively enrolled. A hemodynamically significant lesion was defined as an FFR ≤ 0.80, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was the primary measure. After the planned analysis for the initial algorithm A, we performed another set of exploratory analyses for an improved algorithm B. Results: Of 184 patients who agreed to participate in the study, 151 were finally analyzed.Hemodynamically significant lesions were observed in 79 patients (52.3%). The AUC was 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–0.80) for CCTA, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.56–0.74) for CT-FFR algorithm A (P = 0.866), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.70–0.86) for algorithm B (P = 0.112). Diagnostic accuracy was 0.63 (0.55–0.71) for CCTA alone, 0.66 (0.58–0.74) for algorithm A, and 0.76 (0.68–0.82) for algorithm B. Conclusion This study suggests the feasibility of automated CT-FFR, which can be performed on-site within several hours. However, the diagnostic performance of the current algorithm does not meet the a priori criteria for superiority. Future research is required to improve the accuracy.