Objective: The upper lumbar region has distinctive anatomical characteristics that contribute to the challenges of performing discectomy. We introduce far-lateral transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. Methods: We conducted retrospective review of the patients who underwent a far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy at our institution from January 2018 to September 2024. The electronic medical records, operative records, and radiologic images of the patients were reviewed. Results: A total of 27 patients underwent far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. The patient had a mean age of 54.0 ± 13.7 years. Operation was performed at the L1–2 level in 3 patients (11.1%), L2–3 in 9 patients (33.3%), and L3–4 in 15 patients (55.6%). The patients were followed-up for a mean of 27.7 ± 19.3 months. The Oswestry Disability Index was significantly decreased from 36.3 ± 6.8 preoperatively to 3.7 ± 3.3 at last follow-up (p < 0.001). The visual analogue scale (VAS) back was significantly decreased from 7.8 ± 0.9 preoperatively to 3.1 ± 0.6 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). The VAS leg was significantly decreased from 8.1 ± 0.8 preoperatively to 2.3 ± 0.7 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). Conclusion The far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy would be a viable surgical option for upper lumbar disc herniations.

Objective: The upper lumbar region has distinctive anatomical characteristics that contribute to the challenges of performing discectomy. We introduce far-lateral transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. Methods: We conducted retrospective review of the patients who underwent a far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy at our institution from January 2018 to September 2024. The electronic medical records, operative records, and radiologic images of the patients were reviewed. Results: A total of 27 patients underwent far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. The patient had a mean age of 54.0 ± 13.7 years. Operation was performed at the L1–2 level in 3 patients (11.1%), L2–3 in 9 patients (33.3%), and L3–4 in 15 patients (55.6%). The patients were followed-up for a mean of 27.7 ± 19.3 months. The Oswestry Disability Index was significantly decreased from 36.3 ± 6.8 preoperatively to 3.7 ± 3.3 at last follow-up (p < 0.001). The visual analogue scale (VAS) back was significantly decreased from 7.8 ± 0.9 preoperatively to 3.1 ± 0.6 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). The VAS leg was significantly decreased from 8.1 ± 0.8 preoperatively to 2.3 ± 0.7 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). Conclusion The far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy would be a viable surgical option for upper lumbar disc herniations.

Objective: The upper lumbar region has distinctive anatomical characteristics that contribute to the challenges of performing discectomy. We introduce far-lateral transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. Methods: We conducted retrospective review of the patients who underwent a far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy at our institution from January 2018 to September 2024. The electronic medical records, operative records, and radiologic images of the patients were reviewed. Results: A total of 27 patients underwent far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. The patient had a mean age of 54.0 ± 13.7 years. Operation was performed at the L1–2 level in 3 patients (11.1%), L2–3 in 9 patients (33.3%), and L3–4 in 15 patients (55.6%). The patients were followed-up for a mean of 27.7 ± 19.3 months. The Oswestry Disability Index was significantly decreased from 36.3 ± 6.8 preoperatively to 3.7 ± 3.3 at last follow-up (p < 0.001). The visual analogue scale (VAS) back was significantly decreased from 7.8 ± 0.9 preoperatively to 3.1 ± 0.6 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). The VAS leg was significantly decreased from 8.1 ± 0.8 preoperatively to 2.3 ± 0.7 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). Conclusion The far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy would be a viable surgical option for upper lumbar disc herniations.

Objective: The upper lumbar region has distinctive anatomical characteristics that contribute to the challenges of performing discectomy. We introduce far-lateral transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. Methods: We conducted retrospective review of the patients who underwent a far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy at our institution from January 2018 to September 2024. The electronic medical records, operative records, and radiologic images of the patients were reviewed. Results: A total of 27 patients underwent far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. The patient had a mean age of 54.0 ± 13.7 years. Operation was performed at the L1–2 level in 3 patients (11.1%), L2–3 in 9 patients (33.3%), and L3–4 in 15 patients (55.6%). The patients were followed-up for a mean of 27.7 ± 19.3 months. The Oswestry Disability Index was significantly decreased from 36.3 ± 6.8 preoperatively to 3.7 ± 3.3 at last follow-up (p < 0.001). The visual analogue scale (VAS) back was significantly decreased from 7.8 ± 0.9 preoperatively to 3.1 ± 0.6 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). The VAS leg was significantly decreased from 8.1 ± 0.8 preoperatively to 2.3 ± 0.7 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). Conclusion The far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy would be a viable surgical option for upper lumbar disc herniations.

Objective: The upper lumbar region has distinctive anatomical characteristics that contribute to the challenges of performing discectomy. We introduce far-lateral transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. Methods: We conducted retrospective review of the patients who underwent a far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy at our institution from January 2018 to September 2024. The electronic medical records, operative records, and radiologic images of the patients were reviewed. Results: A total of 27 patients underwent far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. The patient had a mean age of 54.0 ± 13.7 years. Operation was performed at the L1–2 level in 3 patients (11.1%), L2–3 in 9 patients (33.3%), and L3–4 in 15 patients (55.6%). The patients were followed-up for a mean of 27.7 ± 19.3 months. The Oswestry Disability Index was significantly decreased from 36.3 ± 6.8 preoperatively to 3.7 ± 3.3 at last follow-up (p < 0.001). The visual analogue scale (VAS) back was significantly decreased from 7.8 ± 0.9 preoperatively to 3.1 ± 0.6 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). The VAS leg was significantly decreased from 8.1 ± 0.8 preoperatively to 2.3 ± 0.7 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). Conclusion The far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy would be a viable surgical option for upper lumbar disc herniations.

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: The unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (UBE-PCF) has been recently adopted for unilateral radiating arm pain due to cervical herniated intervertebral disc or foraminal stenosis. We systematically meta-analyzed clinical outcomes and complications of the UBE-PCF and compared them with those of full-endoscopic PCF (FE-PCF). Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science until February 29, 2024. Clinical outcomes and complications of the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF were collected and analyzed using the fixed-effect or random-effects model. Clinical outcomes of the UBE-PCF were compared with minimal clinically important difference (MCID) following PCF to evaluate the efficacy of UBE-PCF. Results: Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. In the random-effects meta-analysis, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analogue scale (VAS) neck, and VAS arm were significantly decreased after the UBE-PCF (p<0.001). The improvement of NDI, VAS neck, and VAS arm were significantly higher than MCID (p<0.05). The improvement of NDI, VAS neck, and VAS arm were not significantly different between the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF (p>0.05). Overall incidence of complications of the UBE-PCF was 6.2% (24 of 390). The most common complication was dura tear (2.1%, 8 of 390). The incidence in overall complications was not significantly different between the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF (p=0.813). Conclusion We found that the UBE-PCF significantly improved clinical outcomes. Regarding clinical outcomes and complications, the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF were not significantly different. Therefore, the UBE-PCF would be an advantageous surgical option comparable to FE-PCF for unilateral radiating arm pain.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.