Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Purpose: This study evaluates the viability of a new method that employs transperineal targeted biopsy with frozen section analysis immediately followed by robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), bypassing the traditional systematic biopsy deemed essential by current guidelines. Materials and Methods: Patient selection was based on the following inclusion criteria: those who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy with frozen section analysis and concurrent RARP. Eligibility also required features indicative of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 5 lesion on multiparametric MRI, along with one of these additional criteria: (1) MRI evidence suggesting extracapsular extension (ECE) with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level >10 ng/mL, or (2) a PSA level > 20 ng/mL. Results: Twelve patients were enrolled in this study according to inclusion criteria. The median age (interquartile range) was 73.5 (69.5–75.3) years and PSA was 22.9 (17.0–29.9) ng/mL. Three patients had PI-RADS 5 lesions, and 9 had PI-RADS 5 lesions with findings of ECE. In all cases, the diagnosis based on frozen sections confirmed adenocarcinoma. Following confirmation, each patient underwent immediate RARP. According to the final pathology report, 2 patients had International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 disease, 7 patients had ISUP grade 3, 1 had ISUP grade 4, and 2 had ISUP grade 5 disease. Four patients had stage pT2 disease, 3 had stage pT3a, and 5 had stage pT3b. The median immediate reporting time of the target biopsy frozen section was 20 (19.3–24.5) minutes. No perioperative complications related to target biopsy were observed. Conclusion For patients with a strong suspicion of prostate cancer and a PI-RADS 5 lesion, integrating simultaneous prostate frozen target biopsy with radical prostatectomy may offer a feasible treatment alternative, obviating the necessity for a preoperative systematic biopsy.

Purpose: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is considered a microvascular disorder and serves as an indicator for the potential development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) reflects early myocardial damage caused by microvascular disorders, the association between ED and LVDD remains poorly elucidated. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 123 patients with ED. They underwent RigiScan, and conventional echocardiography, and attempted International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire. ED severity was evaluated by measuring changes in the penile base circumference and duration of penile rigidity (≥70%) during erection. The early diastolic velocity of mitral inflow (E) and early diastolic velocity of the mitral annulus (e′) were measured using echocardiography. The patients were grouped based on the presence of CVD. Results: Among 123 patients, 29 had CVD and 94 did not. Patients with CVD exhibited more pronounced ED and more severe LVDD. Associations between increased penile circumference with echocardiographic parameters were more prominent in patients with CVD than in those without CVD (ΔTtop and e′ wave, r=0.508 and r=0.282, respectively, p for interaction=0.033; ΔTbase and E/e′ ratio, r=-0.338 and r=-0.293, respectively, p for interaction <0.001). In the multivariate linear regression, the increase of penile base circumference was an independent risk factor for LVDD (e′, B=0.503; E/e′ ratio, B=-1.416, respectively, p<0.001). Conclusions ED severity correlated well with LV diastolic dysfunction, particularly in the presence of CVD. This study highlighted the potential role of ED assessment as early indicator of CVD development.

Purpose: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols advocate reduced fasting and early nutrition to improve recovery in surgical patients. However, data on ERAS implementation among Korean surgeons performing major abdominal surgeries remain sparse. Methods: A survey conducted by the External Relation Committee of the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition assessed perioperative nutritional practices among 389 Korean general surgeons from February to September 2023. The survey covered preoperative fasting, carbohydrate drinks, nasogastric tube use, postoperative dietary progression, parenteral nutrition (PN), and oral supplements, yielding 551 responses stratified by specialty. Results: More than 80% of respondents practiced “midnight NPO (Nil Per Os)” fasting, often at the anesthesiology department’s request, while 70%–80% reported no use of preoperative carbohydrate drinks. Most surgeons began dietary progression with water on postoperative day one, advancing to a liquid or soft diet by day two. PN was routinely prescribed by 49% of respondents, with a common dosage of 1,000–1,500 kcal/d. Oral supplements were selectively provided, with 21% of surgeons prescribing them universally. Conclusion The results reveal significant variability in perioperative nutrition practices across Korean surgical specialties, with many adhering to traditional practices despite ERAS guidelines. These findings highlight a need for standardized guidelines in Korea to optimize perioperative nutritional support and improve patient recovery outcomes following major abdominal surgeries.

Purpose: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols advocate reduced fasting and early nutrition to improve recovery in surgical patients. However, data on ERAS implementation among Korean surgeons performing major abdominal surgeries remain sparse. Methods: A survey conducted by the External Relation Committee of the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition assessed perioperative nutritional practices among 389 Korean general surgeons from February to September 2023. The survey covered preoperative fasting, carbohydrate drinks, nasogastric tube use, postoperative dietary progression, parenteral nutrition (PN), and oral supplements, yielding 551 responses stratified by specialty. Results: More than 80% of respondents practiced “midnight NPO (Nil Per Os)” fasting, often at the anesthesiology department’s request, while 70%–80% reported no use of preoperative carbohydrate drinks. Most surgeons began dietary progression with water on postoperative day one, advancing to a liquid or soft diet by day two. PN was routinely prescribed by 49% of respondents, with a common dosage of 1,000–1,500 kcal/d. Oral supplements were selectively provided, with 21% of surgeons prescribing them universally. Conclusion The results reveal significant variability in perioperative nutrition practices across Korean surgical specialties, with many adhering to traditional practices despite ERAS guidelines. These findings highlight a need for standardized guidelines in Korea to optimize perioperative nutritional support and improve patient recovery outcomes following major abdominal surgeries.

Purpose: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols advocate reduced fasting and early nutrition to improve recovery in surgical patients. However, data on ERAS implementation among Korean surgeons performing major abdominal surgeries remain sparse. Methods: A survey conducted by the External Relation Committee of the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition assessed perioperative nutritional practices among 389 Korean general surgeons from February to September 2023. The survey covered preoperative fasting, carbohydrate drinks, nasogastric tube use, postoperative dietary progression, parenteral nutrition (PN), and oral supplements, yielding 551 responses stratified by specialty. Results: More than 80% of respondents practiced “midnight NPO (Nil Per Os)” fasting, often at the anesthesiology department’s request, while 70%–80% reported no use of preoperative carbohydrate drinks. Most surgeons began dietary progression with water on postoperative day one, advancing to a liquid or soft diet by day two. PN was routinely prescribed by 49% of respondents, with a common dosage of 1,000–1,500 kcal/d. Oral supplements were selectively provided, with 21% of surgeons prescribing them universally. Conclusion The results reveal significant variability in perioperative nutrition practices across Korean surgical specialties, with many adhering to traditional practices despite ERAS guidelines. These findings highlight a need for standardized guidelines in Korea to optimize perioperative nutritional support and improve patient recovery outcomes following major abdominal surgeries.