Objective: Spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition; however, the optimal surgical treatment for central lumbar stenosis remains controversial. This study compared the clinical outcomes and radiological parameters of 3 surgical methods: unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (ULBD-UBE), conventional subtotal laminectomy (STL), and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods: This retrospective study included 86 patients, divided into ULBD-UBE (n=34), STL (n=24), and MIS-TLIF (n=28) groups. We evaluated demographics and perioperative factors and assessed clinical outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). Radiological parameters assessed included lumbar lordosis, L4S1 Cobb angle (L4S1), T12S1 Cobb angle (T12S1), increased cross-sectional dural area (CSA), dynamic angulation (DA), dynamic slip (DS), and development of postoperative instability. Results: The ULBD-UBE group showed a significantly shorter hospital stay duration and operation time and reduced blood loss than the other groups (p<0.001). ULBD-UBE group showed a trend towards greater VAS and ODI improvement at 1 month and postoperative NIC symptom relief. Radiologically, MIS-TLIF group exhibited lower postoperative DA and DS (p<0.001), indicating higher postoperative stability. Postoperative instability was lower in the ULBD-UBE group (2.9%) than in the STL group (16.7%) and similar to the MIS-TLIF group (0.0%) (p=0.028). The CSA was highest in the MIS-TLIF group (295.5%) compared to that in the other groups (ULBD-UBE, 216.3%; STL, 245.2%) (p<0.001). Conclusion Compared to other procedures, ULBD-UBE is a safe, effective, and viable surgical procedure for treating lumbar central stenosis.

Objective: Spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition; however, the optimal surgical treatment for central lumbar stenosis remains controversial. This study compared the clinical outcomes and radiological parameters of 3 surgical methods: unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (ULBD-UBE), conventional subtotal laminectomy (STL), and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods: This retrospective study included 86 patients, divided into ULBD-UBE (n=34), STL (n=24), and MIS-TLIF (n=28) groups. We evaluated demographics and perioperative factors and assessed clinical outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). Radiological parameters assessed included lumbar lordosis, L4S1 Cobb angle (L4S1), T12S1 Cobb angle (T12S1), increased cross-sectional dural area (CSA), dynamic angulation (DA), dynamic slip (DS), and development of postoperative instability. Results: The ULBD-UBE group showed a significantly shorter hospital stay duration and operation time and reduced blood loss than the other groups (p<0.001). ULBD-UBE group showed a trend towards greater VAS and ODI improvement at 1 month and postoperative NIC symptom relief. Radiologically, MIS-TLIF group exhibited lower postoperative DA and DS (p<0.001), indicating higher postoperative stability. Postoperative instability was lower in the ULBD-UBE group (2.9%) than in the STL group (16.7%) and similar to the MIS-TLIF group (0.0%) (p=0.028). The CSA was highest in the MIS-TLIF group (295.5%) compared to that in the other groups (ULBD-UBE, 216.3%; STL, 245.2%) (p<0.001). Conclusion Compared to other procedures, ULBD-UBE is a safe, effective, and viable surgical procedure for treating lumbar central stenosis.

Objective: Spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition; however, the optimal surgical treatment for central lumbar stenosis remains controversial. This study compared the clinical outcomes and radiological parameters of 3 surgical methods: unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (ULBD-UBE), conventional subtotal laminectomy (STL), and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods: This retrospective study included 86 patients, divided into ULBD-UBE (n=34), STL (n=24), and MIS-TLIF (n=28) groups. We evaluated demographics and perioperative factors and assessed clinical outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). Radiological parameters assessed included lumbar lordosis, L4S1 Cobb angle (L4S1), T12S1 Cobb angle (T12S1), increased cross-sectional dural area (CSA), dynamic angulation (DA), dynamic slip (DS), and development of postoperative instability. Results: The ULBD-UBE group showed a significantly shorter hospital stay duration and operation time and reduced blood loss than the other groups (p<0.001). ULBD-UBE group showed a trend towards greater VAS and ODI improvement at 1 month and postoperative NIC symptom relief. Radiologically, MIS-TLIF group exhibited lower postoperative DA and DS (p<0.001), indicating higher postoperative stability. Postoperative instability was lower in the ULBD-UBE group (2.9%) than in the STL group (16.7%) and similar to the MIS-TLIF group (0.0%) (p=0.028). The CSA was highest in the MIS-TLIF group (295.5%) compared to that in the other groups (ULBD-UBE, 216.3%; STL, 245.2%) (p<0.001). Conclusion Compared to other procedures, ULBD-UBE is a safe, effective, and viable surgical procedure for treating lumbar central stenosis.

Objective: Spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition; however, the optimal surgical treatment for central lumbar stenosis remains controversial. This study compared the clinical outcomes and radiological parameters of 3 surgical methods: unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (ULBD-UBE), conventional subtotal laminectomy (STL), and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods: This retrospective study included 86 patients, divided into ULBD-UBE (n=34), STL (n=24), and MIS-TLIF (n=28) groups. We evaluated demographics and perioperative factors and assessed clinical outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). Radiological parameters assessed included lumbar lordosis, L4S1 Cobb angle (L4S1), T12S1 Cobb angle (T12S1), increased cross-sectional dural area (CSA), dynamic angulation (DA), dynamic slip (DS), and development of postoperative instability. Results: The ULBD-UBE group showed a significantly shorter hospital stay duration and operation time and reduced blood loss than the other groups (p<0.001). ULBD-UBE group showed a trend towards greater VAS and ODI improvement at 1 month and postoperative NIC symptom relief. Radiologically, MIS-TLIF group exhibited lower postoperative DA and DS (p<0.001), indicating higher postoperative stability. Postoperative instability was lower in the ULBD-UBE group (2.9%) than in the STL group (16.7%) and similar to the MIS-TLIF group (0.0%) (p=0.028). The CSA was highest in the MIS-TLIF group (295.5%) compared to that in the other groups (ULBD-UBE, 216.3%; STL, 245.2%) (p<0.001). Conclusion Compared to other procedures, ULBD-UBE is a safe, effective, and viable surgical procedure for treating lumbar central stenosis.

Objective: Spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition; however, the optimal surgical treatment for central lumbar stenosis remains controversial. This study compared the clinical outcomes and radiological parameters of 3 surgical methods: unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (ULBD-UBE), conventional subtotal laminectomy (STL), and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods: This retrospective study included 86 patients, divided into ULBD-UBE (n=34), STL (n=24), and MIS-TLIF (n=28) groups. We evaluated demographics and perioperative factors and assessed clinical outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). Radiological parameters assessed included lumbar lordosis, L4S1 Cobb angle (L4S1), T12S1 Cobb angle (T12S1), increased cross-sectional dural area (CSA), dynamic angulation (DA), dynamic slip (DS), and development of postoperative instability. Results: The ULBD-UBE group showed a significantly shorter hospital stay duration and operation time and reduced blood loss than the other groups (p<0.001). ULBD-UBE group showed a trend towards greater VAS and ODI improvement at 1 month and postoperative NIC symptom relief. Radiologically, MIS-TLIF group exhibited lower postoperative DA and DS (p<0.001), indicating higher postoperative stability. Postoperative instability was lower in the ULBD-UBE group (2.9%) than in the STL group (16.7%) and similar to the MIS-TLIF group (0.0%) (p=0.028). The CSA was highest in the MIS-TLIF group (295.5%) compared to that in the other groups (ULBD-UBE, 216.3%; STL, 245.2%) (p<0.001). Conclusion Compared to other procedures, ULBD-UBE is a safe, effective, and viable surgical procedure for treating lumbar central stenosis.

A Pancoast tumor is a rare form of lung cancer that occurs mainly in the apex of the lung as the main symptom of upper extremity pain. Oropharyngeal dysphagia is not a common symptom. This case report describes a 57-year-old male patient with a Pancoast tumor who presented with oropharyngeal dysphagia. The patient's symptoms included left shoulder and arm pain. The chest computed tomography revealed a mass in the apex of the left lung, invading the mediastinum and compressing the left brachial vein and brachial plexus. He was discharged after receiving palliative chemotherapy. The patient returned to the hospital with dyspnea and was diagnosed with aspiration pneumonia. The cranial nerve exam confirmed hoarseness and an absent gag reflex. In addition, the laryngeal elevation decreased, and the bedside water test was positive. A video fluoroscopic swallow study confirmed the presence of oropharyngeal dysphagia, which was attributed to left glossopharyngeal and vagus nerve damage associated with the Pancoast tumor. This case highlights the need to be aware that a Pancoast tumor can cause oropharyngeal dysphagia. If oropharyngeal dysphagia is suspected, VFSS should be performed to prevent complications leading to mortality from lung cancer.

Background: The role of vitamin D deficiency and vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene polymorphisms has been established in many autoimmune diseases, including vitiligo, but the result is still controversial. Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the serum vitamin D levels in vitiligo patients and to compare the association of VDR gene polymorphisms in vitiligo patients and healthy controls. Methods: We collected the data of age, sex, serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25[OH]D) level, thyroid autoantibodies, disease duration, types of vitiligo, family history and the affected body surface area of vitiligo from 172 patients. And we analyzed the VDR gene polymorphisms in 130 vitiligo and 453 age-sex-matched control subjects. Results: The mean serum level of 25(OH)D in 172 vitiligo patients was 18.75 ± 0.60 ng/mL, which had no significant difference with a mean serum value of 25(OH)D in the Korean population. However, there were significant differences according to the duration of the disease and family history. Also, there were no significant differences in the genotypic and allelic distributions of 37 examined SNPs of VDR gene between vitiligo patients and healthy controls. Conclusion Serum level of 25(OH)D in vitiligo patients was not significantly different from the mean serum value of the Korean population. Also, there were no significant differences in the genotypic distributions of VDR gene between vitiligo patients and healthy controls.

In November 2021, 14 international travel-related severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of concern (VOC) patients were detected in South Korea. Epidemiologic investigation revealed community transmission of the omicron VOC. A total of 80 SARS-CoV-2 omicron VOC-positive patients were identified until December 10, 2021 and 66 of them reported no relation to the international travel.There may be more transmissions with this VOC in Korea than reported.

Body Mass Index ; Child ; Humans ; Insulin ; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease ; Obesity ; Overweight ; Pediatric Obesity ; Prevalence ; Waist Circumference

PURPOSE: The optimal cytotoxic regimens have not been established for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who develop disease progression on first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a multi-center randomized phase II trial to compare the clinical outcomes between pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination therapy followed by maintenance pemetrexed (PC) and pemetrexed monotherapy (P) after failure of first-line EGFR-TKI. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary objectives included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and safety and toxicity profiles. RESULTS: A total of 96 patientswere randomized, and 91 patientswere treated at 14 centers in Korea. The ORR was 34.8% (16/46) for the PC arm and 17.8% (8/45) for the P arm (p=0.066). With 23.4 months of follow-up, the median PFS was 5.4 months in the PC arm and 6.4 months in the P arm (p=0.114). The median OS was 17.9 months and 15.7 months in PC and P arms, respectively (p=0.787). Adverse events ≥ grade 3 were reported in 12 patients (26.1%) in the PC arm and nine patients (20.0%) in the P arm (p=0.491). The overall time trends of HRQOL were not significantly different between the two arms. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of pemetrexed therapy in NSCLC patients with disease progression after firstline EGFR-TKI might not be improved by adding cisplatin.
Arm ; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung ; Cisplatin ; Disease Progression ; Disease-Free Survival ; Epidermal Growth Factor ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Korea ; Lung Neoplasms ; Lung ; Pemetrexed ; Protein-Tyrosine Kinases ; Quality of Life ; Receptor, Epidermal Growth Factor ; Tyrosine