1.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
2.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
3.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
4.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
5.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
6.Extracellular Vesicles Derived from Adipose Stem Cells Alleviate Systemic Sclerosis by Inhibiting TGF-β Pathway
Eunae KIM ; Hark Kyun KIM ; Jae Hoon SUL ; Jeongmi LEE ; Seung Hyun BAEK ; Yoonsuk CHO ; Jihoon HAN ; Junsik KIM ; Sunyoung PARK ; Jae Hyung PARK ; Yong Woo CHO ; Dong-Gyu JO
Biomolecules & Therapeutics 2024;32(4):432-441
Systemic sclerosis is an autoimmune disease characterized by inflammatory reactions and fibrosis. Myofibroblasts are considered therapeutic targets for preventing and reversing the pathogenesis of fibrosis in systemic sclerosis. Although the mechanisms that differentiate into myofibroblasts are diverse, transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) is known to be a key mediator of fibrosis in systemic sclerosis. This study investigated the effects of extracellular vesicles derived from human adipose stem cells (ASC-EVs) in an in vivo systemic sclerosis model and in vitro TGF-β1-induced dermal fibroblasts. The therapeutic effects of ASC-EVs on the in vivo systemic sclerosis model were evaluated based on dermal thickness and the number of α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA)-expressing cells using hematoxylin and eosin staining and immunohistochemistry. Administration of ASC-EVs decreased both the dermal thickness and α-SMA expressing cell number as well as the mRNA levels of fibrotic genes, such as Acta2, Ccn2, Col1a1 and Comp. Additionally, we discovered that ASC-EVs can decrease the expression of α-SMA and CTGF and suppress the TGF-β pathway by inhibiting the activation of SMAD2 in dermal fibroblasts induced by TGF-β1. Finally, TGF-β1-induced dermal fibroblasts underwent selective death through ASC-EVs treatment. These results indicate that ASC-EVs could provide a therapeutic approach for preventing and reversing systemic sclerosis.
7.Outcomes of Hip Arthroplasty in Patients with Preoperative Thrombocytopenia
Jong Jin GO ; Minji HAN ; Tae Woo KIM ; Byung Kyu PARK ; Jung-Wee PARK ; Young-Kyun LEE
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2024;16(5):711-717
Background:
Thrombocytopenia is a condition where platelet counts are below the normal range (< 150 ×103 /µL), resulting in a higher risk of bleeding and affecting the results of hip arthroplasty. We assessed the impact of preoperative platelet counts on the clinical results of patients who underwent hip arthroplasty.
Methods:
Between April 2003 and March 2023, 437 patients (451 hips), who had preoperative thrombocytopenia of less than 150 ×103 /µL platelets, underwent hip arthroplasty. Preoperative platelet levels were categorized into severe thrombocytopenia (< 50 ×103 /µL) and non-severe thrombocytopenia (50–149 ×103 /µL). Total blood loss, operation time, requirement of transfusion, amount of transfusion, duration of surgical wound oozing, length of hospital stay, mortality rate at 1 year after surgery, and any complication were compared between the 2 groups.
Results:
No notable differences were observed in the surgery time or the total amount of blood loss between the groups. The requirement of transfusion and the amount of transfused blood were higher in the severe thrombocytopenia group. Prolonged oozing was found in around 18% in both groups, while periprosthetic joint infections occurred in 3 of the non-severe thrombocytopenia group. No significant difference was noted in the duration of hospital stay (25.6 ± 18.3 days vs. 19.4 ± 16.6 days, p = 0.067) and 1-year mortality (22.2% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.110).
Conclusions
Hip arthroplasties are safe for patients with low platelet counts and do not lead to prolonged hospital stays. On the other hand, patients with severe thrombocytopenia tend to need blood transfusions more frequently than those with less severe thrombocytopenia.
8.Reliability of the 2018 Revised Version of AO/OTA Classification for Femoral Shaft Fractures
Jung-Wee PARK ; Woo-Lam JO ; Byung Kyu PARK ; Jong Jin GO ; Minji HAN ; Sungha CHUN ; Young-Kyun LEE
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2024;16(5):688-693
Background:
The Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) and the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) classification system for diaphyseal fracture has been recently revised to refine and enhance the accuracy of fracture categorization. This study aimed to investigate the interobserver reliability of the new AO/OTA classification and to compare it with the older version in femoral shaft fractures.
Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed 139 patients (mean age, 43.8 ± 19.5 years; 92 men and 47 women) with femoral shaft fractures who were treated from 2003 to 2017. Four well-trained observers independently classified each fracture following the previous and revised AO/OTA classification system. We calculated the Fleiss kappa for the interobserver reliability.
Results:
The previous classification showed the kappa value of 0.580 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.547–0.613), and the revised version showed 0.528 (95% CI, 0.504–0.552). Both the old and the revised versions showed moderate reliability.
Conclusions
Our study highlights the moderate interobserver reliability of both the previous and new AO/OTA classification systems for diaphyseal femur fractures. These findings emphasize the importance of standardized systems in clinical decision-making and underscore the need for ongoing education and collaboration to enhance fracture classification.
9.Fracture Liaison Service in Korea: 2022 Position Statement of the Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research
Jae-Young LIM ; Young Yul KIM ; Jin-Woo KIM ; Seongbin HONG ; Kyunghoon MIN ; Jaewon BEOM ; Byung-Ho YOON ; Sang Yoon LEE ; Sung Hye KONG ; Jun-Il YOO ; Myung Sook PARK ; Jae-Hwi NHO ; Sangbong KO ; Min Wook JOO ; Dong Hwan KIM ; Chan Ho PARK ; Tae-Young KIM ; Seil SOHN ; So Young PARK ; A Ram HONG ; Young Joo KWON ; Sung Bae PARK ; Young-Kyun LEE ; Nam Hoon MOON ; Bo Ryun KIM ; Yongsoon PARK ; Yonghan CHA ; Yong-Chan HA
Journal of Bone Metabolism 2023;30(1):31-36
Osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures cause socioeconomic concerns, and medical system and policies appear insufficient to prepare for these issues in Korea, where the older adult population is rapidly increasing. Many countries around the world are already responding to osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures by adopting fracture liaison service (FLS), and such an attempt has only begun in Korea. In this article, we introduce the operation methods for institutions implementing FLS and characteristics of services, and activities of the FLS Committee for FLS implementation in the Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research. In addition, we hope that the current position statement will contribute to the implementation of FLS in Korea and impel policy changes to enable a multidisciplinary and integrated FLS operated under the medical system.
10.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach
Tae-Han KIM ; In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Baek-Hui KIM ; Bang Wool EOM ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chang In CHOI ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chung sik GONG ; Dong Jin KIM ; Arthur Eung-Hyuck CHO ; Eun Jeong GONG ; Geum Jong SONG ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hye Seong AHN ; Hyun LIM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Kyoung Doo SONG ; Minkyu JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Sang-Yong SON ; Shin-Hoo PARK ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Tae-Yong KIM ; Woo Kyun BAE ; Woong Sub KOOM ; Yeseob JEE ; Yoo Min KIM ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Young Suk PARK ; Hye Sook HAN ; Su Youn NAM ; Seong-Ho KONG ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2023;23(1):3-106
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail