Purpose: This study aims to develop and implement an economic evaluation using a micro-costing approach to provide a precise and transparent analysis of the direct costs of cystoscopic procedures in Korean hospitals. The study seeks to identify key cost components and evaluate whether current reimbursement rates accurately reflect these direct costs. Materials and Methods: Significant variations in cost items were identified across different studies. An economic evaluation was conducted using a micro-costing methodology for the cost analysis of cystoscopic procedures, developed through literature review, data collection from studies, and expert consultations. Results: Gangnam Severance Hospital (GSH) performed 2,188 cystoscopic procedures, including 1,847 cystoscopies and 341 JJ stent removals, with average costs of $100.8 and $110.6, respectively. At National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital (NHIMC), 1,463 procedures were performed, including 1,167 cystoscopies and 296 JJ stent removals, with average costs of $119.2 and $125.3. Cystoscopy costs at GSH were driven by reprocessing ($45.8, 45.4%) and equipment ($33.1, 32.9%), while NHIMC’s were $52.5 (44.0%) for equipment and $48.7 (40.8%) for reprocessing. Both hospitals incurred financial losses, with NHIS (National Health Insurance Service) covering only about 71.7% and 60.6% of costs for cystoscopy, and 71.0% and 62.7% for JJ stent removal. Conclusions The significant discrepancy between HIRA (Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service)’s estimated costs and those identified here suggests that current fees for cystoscopic procedures may be underestimated and require reassessment.Given the results, reevaluating these rates is essential to ensure fair compensation for healthcare providers and to deliver optimal patient care.

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.

Background: This study compared the costs associated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Korea by utilizing the National Health Insurance Service database. Methods: Between June 2015 and May 2019, 1,468 patients underwent primary isolated transfemoral TAVI, while 2,835 patients received primary isolated SAVR with a bioprosthesis. We assessed the costs of index hospitalization and subsequent healthcare utilization, categorizing the cohort into 6 age subgroups: <70, 70–74, 75–79, 80–84, 85–89, and ≥90 years. The median follow-up periods were 2.5 and 3.0 years in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively. Results: The index hospitalization costs were 41.0 million Korean won (KRW) (interquartile range [IQR], 39.1–44.7) for the TAVI group and 24.6 million KRW (IQR, 21.3–30.2) for the SAVR group (p<0.001). The TAVI group exhibited relatively constant index hospitalization costs across different age subgroups. In contrast, the SAVR group showed increasing index hospitalization costs with advancing age. The healthcare utilization costs were 5.7 million KRW per year (IQR, 3.3–14.2) for the TAVI group and 4.0 million KRW per year (IQR, 2.2–9.0) for the SAVR group (p<0.001). Healthcare utilization costs were higher in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group for the age subgroups of <70, 70–74, and 75–79 years, and were comparable in the age subgroups of 80–84, 85–89, and ≥90 years. Conclusion TAVI had much higher index hospitalization costs than SAVR. Additionally, the overall healthcare utilization costs post-discharge for TAVI were also marginally higher than those for SAVR in younger age subgroups.

Purpose: We evaluated the feasibility, safety, and learning curve of extraperitoneal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP) and introduced innovative surgical techniques to maintain the instrument positions during the procedures. Materials and Methods: A cohort of 100 patients underwent extraperitoneal SP-RARP at our institution from December 2021 to April 2023. The procedures were performed by an experienced urology surgeon utilizing two surgical techniques for dissecting the posterior aspect of the prostate—“changing instrument roles” and “using camera inversion”—to prevent positional shifts between the camera and instruments. Results: The mean operation time for SP-RARP was 93.58 minutes, and the mean console time was 65.16 minutes. The mean estimated blood loss during the procedures was 109.30 mL. No cases necessitated conversion to multi-port robot, laparoscopy, or open surgery, and there were no major complications during the hospital stay or in the short-term follow-up. Early outcomes of post-radical prostatectomy indicated a biochemical recurrence rate of 4.0% over a mean follow-up duration of 6.40 months, with continence and potency recovery rates of 92.3% and 55.8%, respectively. Analysis of the learning curve showed no significant differences in operation time, console time, and positive surgical margin rates between the initial and latter 50 cases. Conclusions Extraperitoneal SP-RARP is a feasible and safe option for the treatment of localized prostate cancer in skilled hands.Continued accrual of cases is essential for future comparisons of SP-RARP with multiport approaches.

Background: This study compared the costs associated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Korea by utilizing the National Health Insurance Service database. Methods: Between June 2015 and May 2019, 1,468 patients underwent primary isolated transfemoral TAVI, while 2,835 patients received primary isolated SAVR with a bioprosthesis. We assessed the costs of index hospitalization and subsequent healthcare utilization, categorizing the cohort into 6 age subgroups: <70, 70–74, 75–79, 80–84, 85–89, and ≥90 years. The median follow-up periods were 2.5 and 3.0 years in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively. Results: The index hospitalization costs were 41.0 million Korean won (KRW) (interquartile range [IQR], 39.1–44.7) for the TAVI group and 24.6 million KRW (IQR, 21.3–30.2) for the SAVR group (p<0.001). The TAVI group exhibited relatively constant index hospitalization costs across different age subgroups. In contrast, the SAVR group showed increasing index hospitalization costs with advancing age. The healthcare utilization costs were 5.7 million KRW per year (IQR, 3.3–14.2) for the TAVI group and 4.0 million KRW per year (IQR, 2.2–9.0) for the SAVR group (p<0.001). Healthcare utilization costs were higher in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group for the age subgroups of <70, 70–74, and 75–79 years, and were comparable in the age subgroups of 80–84, 85–89, and ≥90 years. Conclusion TAVI had much higher index hospitalization costs than SAVR. Additionally, the overall healthcare utilization costs post-discharge for TAVI were also marginally higher than those for SAVR in younger age subgroups.