Background: To identify the optimal surgical technique for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), this study compared surgical outcomes and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in patients undergoing single-level ACDF using cage alone single-level fusion and plate fixation techniques. Methods: This single-center retrospective study (2003–2018) included patients who underwent single-level ACDF with either plate fixation (PLATE) or cage (CAGE) alone. The radiologic and clinical outcomes between the 2 surgical groups were compared over a 4-year follow-up period. Outcomes of interest included parameters related to range of motion, sagittal alignment, as well as fusion, subsidence, and ASD rates. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Dysphagia and hoarseness rates were estimated based on medical records. Results: Forty-seven patients were included (n=17 in CAGE group). In the CAGE group, 94.1% of the patients had Bridwell grade 1 or 2, compared to 83.3% in the PLATE group (p = 0.396). Subsidence occurred in 12.5% and 3.6% of the CAGE and PLATE cases, respectively (p = 0.543). Segmental kyphosis progressed in the CAGE group compared to the PLATE group at 12, 24, and 48 months (p < 0.001). Radiographic ASD was observed in 41.2% and 30.0% of patients in the CAGE and PLATE groups, respectively, with a higher incidence in the upper segments for both groups. Preoperative NDI scores were similar between the groups; however, postoperatively, the CAGE group had significantly lower NDI scores (3.50 ± 2.74 vs. 8.00 ± 5.81) at 4 years (p = 0.020). Neck pain VAS scores also showed significant improvement in the CAGE group (2.33 ± 2.94) compared with that in the PLATE group (3.07 ± 2.31) at 4 years (p = 0.045). Both groups showed comparable arm pain VAS scores at 2 and 4 years postoperatively. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in 1 patient in the PLATE group, resolving almost completely by 1 year. Conclusions Single-level ACDF using a cage alone technique demonstrated favorable radiologic and clinical outcomes overall compared to plate-augmented ACDF. However, plate augmentation is recommended for patients with severe cervical kyphosis or those at high risk of subsidence.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Background: To identify the optimal surgical technique for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), this study compared surgical outcomes and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in patients undergoing single-level ACDF using cage alone single-level fusion and plate fixation techniques. Methods: This single-center retrospective study (2003–2018) included patients who underwent single-level ACDF with either plate fixation (PLATE) or cage (CAGE) alone. The radiologic and clinical outcomes between the 2 surgical groups were compared over a 4-year follow-up period. Outcomes of interest included parameters related to range of motion, sagittal alignment, as well as fusion, subsidence, and ASD rates. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Dysphagia and hoarseness rates were estimated based on medical records. Results: Forty-seven patients were included (n=17 in CAGE group). In the CAGE group, 94.1% of the patients had Bridwell grade 1 or 2, compared to 83.3% in the PLATE group (p = 0.396). Subsidence occurred in 12.5% and 3.6% of the CAGE and PLATE cases, respectively (p = 0.543). Segmental kyphosis progressed in the CAGE group compared to the PLATE group at 12, 24, and 48 months (p < 0.001). Radiographic ASD was observed in 41.2% and 30.0% of patients in the CAGE and PLATE groups, respectively, with a higher incidence in the upper segments for both groups. Preoperative NDI scores were similar between the groups; however, postoperatively, the CAGE group had significantly lower NDI scores (3.50 ± 2.74 vs. 8.00 ± 5.81) at 4 years (p = 0.020). Neck pain VAS scores also showed significant improvement in the CAGE group (2.33 ± 2.94) compared with that in the PLATE group (3.07 ± 2.31) at 4 years (p = 0.045). Both groups showed comparable arm pain VAS scores at 2 and 4 years postoperatively. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in 1 patient in the PLATE group, resolving almost completely by 1 year. Conclusions Single-level ACDF using a cage alone technique demonstrated favorable radiologic and clinical outcomes overall compared to plate-augmented ACDF. However, plate augmentation is recommended for patients with severe cervical kyphosis or those at high risk of subsidence.

Background: To identify the optimal surgical technique for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), this study compared surgical outcomes and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in patients undergoing single-level ACDF using cage alone single-level fusion and plate fixation techniques. Methods: This single-center retrospective study (2003–2018) included patients who underwent single-level ACDF with either plate fixation (PLATE) or cage (CAGE) alone. The radiologic and clinical outcomes between the 2 surgical groups were compared over a 4-year follow-up period. Outcomes of interest included parameters related to range of motion, sagittal alignment, as well as fusion, subsidence, and ASD rates. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Dysphagia and hoarseness rates were estimated based on medical records. Results: Forty-seven patients were included (n=17 in CAGE group). In the CAGE group, 94.1% of the patients had Bridwell grade 1 or 2, compared to 83.3% in the PLATE group (p = 0.396). Subsidence occurred in 12.5% and 3.6% of the CAGE and PLATE cases, respectively (p = 0.543). Segmental kyphosis progressed in the CAGE group compared to the PLATE group at 12, 24, and 48 months (p < 0.001). Radiographic ASD was observed in 41.2% and 30.0% of patients in the CAGE and PLATE groups, respectively, with a higher incidence in the upper segments for both groups. Preoperative NDI scores were similar between the groups; however, postoperatively, the CAGE group had significantly lower NDI scores (3.50 ± 2.74 vs. 8.00 ± 5.81) at 4 years (p = 0.020). Neck pain VAS scores also showed significant improvement in the CAGE group (2.33 ± 2.94) compared with that in the PLATE group (3.07 ± 2.31) at 4 years (p = 0.045). Both groups showed comparable arm pain VAS scores at 2 and 4 years postoperatively. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in 1 patient in the PLATE group, resolving almost completely by 1 year. Conclusions Single-level ACDF using a cage alone technique demonstrated favorable radiologic and clinical outcomes overall compared to plate-augmented ACDF. However, plate augmentation is recommended for patients with severe cervical kyphosis or those at high risk of subsidence.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Background: To identify the optimal surgical technique for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), this study compared surgical outcomes and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in patients undergoing single-level ACDF using cage alone single-level fusion and plate fixation techniques. Methods: This single-center retrospective study (2003–2018) included patients who underwent single-level ACDF with either plate fixation (PLATE) or cage (CAGE) alone. The radiologic and clinical outcomes between the 2 surgical groups were compared over a 4-year follow-up period. Outcomes of interest included parameters related to range of motion, sagittal alignment, as well as fusion, subsidence, and ASD rates. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Dysphagia and hoarseness rates were estimated based on medical records. Results: Forty-seven patients were included (n=17 in CAGE group). In the CAGE group, 94.1% of the patients had Bridwell grade 1 or 2, compared to 83.3% in the PLATE group (p = 0.396). Subsidence occurred in 12.5% and 3.6% of the CAGE and PLATE cases, respectively (p = 0.543). Segmental kyphosis progressed in the CAGE group compared to the PLATE group at 12, 24, and 48 months (p < 0.001). Radiographic ASD was observed in 41.2% and 30.0% of patients in the CAGE and PLATE groups, respectively, with a higher incidence in the upper segments for both groups. Preoperative NDI scores were similar between the groups; however, postoperatively, the CAGE group had significantly lower NDI scores (3.50 ± 2.74 vs. 8.00 ± 5.81) at 4 years (p = 0.020). Neck pain VAS scores also showed significant improvement in the CAGE group (2.33 ± 2.94) compared with that in the PLATE group (3.07 ± 2.31) at 4 years (p = 0.045). Both groups showed comparable arm pain VAS scores at 2 and 4 years postoperatively. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in 1 patient in the PLATE group, resolving almost completely by 1 year. Conclusions Single-level ACDF using a cage alone technique demonstrated favorable radiologic and clinical outcomes overall compared to plate-augmented ACDF. However, plate augmentation is recommended for patients with severe cervical kyphosis or those at high risk of subsidence.

Background: As the global population ages, medical professionals are also aging. This study investigates the status of Korean anesthesiologists over the age of 60. Methods: Anesthesiologists aged 60 and older, residing and working in Korea, were invited to participate in this study via e-mail from February to March 2021 and by mail from June to August 2021. The survey consisted of 40 questions covering 10 topics, including health status, residence, work style, and economic status. Depending on the type of question, answers were ranked on a scale of 1, 2, and 3, with the most preferred response being selected. Results: A total of 63 responses were received, resulting in a response rate of 26.5%. Among the respondents, 56 were currently practicing as anesthesiologists and reported satisfaction with their clinical practice and life status. On average, they treated 24 patients per day without experiencing significant discomfort or inconvenience in their roles as senior physicians. Twenty-four respondents acknowledged physical discomfort related to aging, and nine expressed cautions regarding age-related changes. Fifty-two respondents indicated that reeducation for advanced medical practice as anesthesiologists was necessary. Conclusions Senior anesthesiologists in Korea are primarily working in secondary and tertiary hospitals and are satisfied with their current life status. A comprehensive evaluation of reeducation programs for advanced clinical practice and retirement strategies for senior anesthesiologists is needed to address the growing number of aging physicians in the workforce.

BACKGROUND: The choice of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) vs . total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) remains controversial. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the clinical results of UKA and TKA for treating unicompartmental KOA. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for articles published up to January 2, 2023. The literature was rigorously screened to include only RCTs comparing UKA and TKA for unicompartmental KOA. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to calculate the mean difference (MD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) according to the Cochrane standards. RESULTS: Thirteen publications involving 683 UKAs and 683 TKAs were analyzed. Except for one study with a follow-up period of 15 years, all outcome measures reported were within 5 years of follow-up. Meta-analysis showed better knee recovery (MD: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.01-1.45; P  <0.001), greater knee function (MD: 1.78; 95% CI: 0.34-3.22; P  = 0.020), less pain (MD: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.43-1.06; P  <0.001), and better health status (MD: 3.75; 95% CI: 0.81-6.69; P  = 0.010) after UKA than TKA. However, considering the minimal clinically important difference values for these variables, the findings were not clinically relevant. Moreover, UKA patients had fewer complications (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45-0.78; P  <0.001) and shorter hospital stays (MD: -0.89; 95% CI: -1.57 to -0.22; P  = 0.009) than did TKA patients. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of postoperative range of movement, revision, failure, operation time, and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS In terms of clinical efficacy, there was no obvious advantage of UKA over TKA in the surgical treatment of knee OA when considering the minimal clinically important difference. The main advantage of UKA over TKA is that it leads to fewer complications and a shorter length of hospital stay. It is ideal to perform prospective studies with longer follow-up periods to fully evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of the two procedures in the future.
Humans ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/methods* ; Osteoarthritis, Knee/surgery* ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Treatment Outcome

Background: Accurate core temperature measurement in children is crucial; however, measuring esophageal temperature (TE) using a supraglottic airway device (SAD) can be challenging. Second-generation SADs, which have a gastric channel, can measure TE, and reduce gastric air volume. This study aimed to compare TE, measured using a probe inserted through the SAD gastric channel, with tympanic membrane (TTM) and forehead (TZHF) temperatures, measured using a zero-heat-flux cutaneous thermometer, with rectal temperature (TR). Methods: Temperature was recorded at 10-min intervals from 10 min after probe insertion until completion of surgery. We performed an equivalence test to evaluate whether the TE, TTM, and TZHF were equivalent to TR, with a margin of 0.3°C. Additionally, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess the reliability of TE and TR at each time point. Results: We included 41 patients in the final analysis. In all patients, the esophageal probe was successfully inserted through the gastric channel of the SAD. When assessing agreement with TR as a reference, TE demonstrated equivalent results at all time points (P < 0.001 at 0, 10, 20, 30, and 40-min intervals and P = 0.018 at the 50-min interval), except at the completion of surgery (P = 0.697). TE also demonstrated good reliability with TR as a reference throughout the surgery (ICC > 0.75). Conclusions In children with SAD insertion, TE can be accurately and feasibly measured through the SAD’s gastric channel, making it suitable for routine application.