With a rapidly aging population and increasing use of antiresorptive agents, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) represents a growing clinical challenge worldwide. To address the need for tailored clinical guidance, a multidisciplinary task force was convened. Five Korean academic societies—the Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, the Korean Society of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, the Korean Osteoporosis Society, and the Korean Endocrine Society—collaborated to develop this position statement. The consensus was formulated through comprehensive reviews of literature, combined with three rounds of formal surveys to consolidate expert opinion on controversial topics. This position paper provides evidence-based clinical guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of MRONJ tailored to the Korean healthcare environment. The diagnostic criteria affirm the standard definition but add a provision for diagnosis based on clinical or radiographic evidence of necrotic bone, even if the traditional 8-week timeframe has not been met. The committee advocates for retaining stage 0 in the staging system to emphasize early detection and preventive intervention. Key recommendations include prescriptive, drug-specific guidelines for prophylactic drug holidays (e.g., a 2-month pause for oral bisphosphonates; timing surgery 3 to 4 months after the last denosumab injection) to minimize MRONJ risk from dental procedures. This statement also provides a clear framework for therapeutic drug holidays in established MRONJ, carefully balancing the need for jaw healing against systemic fracture risk. For treatment, this statement advocates for early and active surgical intervention across all MRONJ stages, supported by evidence of superior long-term outcomes compared to conservative management. This position statement offers a unique, evidence-based Korean clinical practice guideline for managing MRONJ. It is intended to standardize care, reduce clinical confusion, and ultimately improve patient outcomes by providing a clear framework for decision-making.

With a rapidly aging population and increasing use of antiresorptive agents, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) represents a growing clinical challenge worldwide. To address the need for tailored clinical guidance, a multidisciplinary task force was convened. Five Korean academic societies—the Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, the Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, the Korean Society of Osteoporosis, and the Korean Endocrine Society—collaborated to develop this position statement. The consensus was formulated through comprehensive reviews of literature, combined with three rounds of formal surveys to consolidate expert opinion on controversial topics. This position paper provides evidence-based clinical guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of MRONJ tailored to the Korean healthcare environment. The diagnostic criteria affirm the standard definition but add a provision for diagnosis based on clinical or radiographic evidence of necrotic bone, even if the traditional 8-week timeframe has not been met. The committee advocates for retaining Stage 0 in the staging system to emphasize early detection and preventive intervention. Key recommendations include prescriptive, drug-specific guidelines for prophylactic drug holidays (e.g., a 2-month pause for oral bisphosphonates; timing surgery 3-4 months after the last denosumab injection) to minimize MRONJ risk from dental procedures. This statement also provides a clear framework for therapeutic drug holidays in established MRONJ, carefully balancing the need for jaw healing against systemic fracture risk. For treatment, this statement advocates for early and active surgical intervention across all MRONJ stages, supported by evidence of superior long-term outcomes compared to conservative management.This position statement offers a unique, evidence-based Korean clinical practice guideline for managing MRONJ. It is intended to standardize care, reduce clinical confusion, and ultimately improve patient outcomes by providing a clear framework for decision-making.

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.

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.

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.

Purpose: Obesity has been known to contribute to technical difficulties in surgery. Until now, body mass index (BMI) has been used to measure obesity. However, there are reports that BMI does not always correspond to the visceral fat. Recently, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) has been used for body composition analysis. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the body composition index obtained using a BIA device in predicting short-term postoperative outcomes. Methods: Data of patients who underwent elective major colorectal surgery using minimally invasive techniques were reviewed retrospectively. Body composition status was recorded using a commercial BIA device the day before surgery. The relationship between BMI, body composition index, and short-term postoperative outcomes, including operative time, was analyzed. Results: Sixty-six patients were enrolled in this study. In the correlation analysis, positive correlation was observed between BMI and body composition index. BMI and body composition index were not associated with short-term postoperative outcomes. Percent body fat (odds ratio, 4.226; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.064–16.780; P=0.041) was found to be a statistically significant factor of prolonged operative time in the multivariate analysis. Correlation analysis showed that body fat mass was related to prolonged operative time (correlation coefficients, 0.245; P=0.048). In the area under curve analysis, body fat mass showed a statistically significant predictive probability for prolonged operative time (body fat mass: area, 0.662; 95% CI, 0.531–0.764; P=0.024). Conclusion The body composition index can be used as a predictive marker for prolonged operative time. Further studies are needed to determine its usefulness.

Methods: In retrospectively collected data, 149 patients who underwent single-level ACDF for degenerative disease were enrolled and divided into non-plating (n=66) and plating (n=83). Interspinous motion (ISM) at the arthrodesis segment, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for neck pain, and Neck Disability Index (NDI) were serially evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Predictable factors for fusion, including age, sex, plating, diabetes, smoking, and type of grafts, were investigated, and fusion was defined as ISM <1 mm. Results: In both groups, ISM was the highest at 3 months and gradually decreased thereafter, and the plating group showed significantly lower serial ISM than the non-plating group at 12 months. The plating group had lower NRS and NDI scores than the nonplating group at 12 months, and the difference in the NRS scores was statistically significant, particularly at 3 and 6 months, although that of the NDI scores was not. In a multivariate analysis, plating was the most powerful predictor for fusion. Conclusions Plating significantly decreases the serial ISM compared with non-plating in single-level ACDF, and such decreased motion is correlated with decreased neck pain until 12 months postoperatively, particularly at 3 and 6 months. Given that plating was the most predictive factor for fusion, we recommend plating even in single-level ACDF for better early clinical outcomes.

Recently, ex-vivo gene therapy has emerged as a promising approach to enhance the therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) by introducing functional genes in vitro. Here, we explored the need of using selection markers to increase the gene delivery efficiency and evaluated the potential risks associated with their use in the manufacturing process. We used MSCs/CD that carry the cytosine deaminase gene (CD) as a therapeutic gene and a puromycin resistance gene (PuroR) as a selection marker. We evaluated the correlation between the therapeutic efficacy and the purity of therapeutic MSCs/CD by examining their anti-cancer effect on co-cultured U87/GFP cells. To simulate in vivo horizontal transfer of the PuroR gene in vivo, we generated a puromycin-resistant