1.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
2.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
3.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
4.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
5.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
6.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach
Tae-Han KIM ; In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Baek-Hui KIM ; Bang Wool EOM ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chang In CHOI ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chung sik GONG ; Dong Jin KIM ; Arthur Eung-Hyuck CHO ; Eun Jeong GONG ; Geum Jong SONG ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hye Seong AHN ; Hyun LIM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Kyoung Doo SONG ; Minkyu JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Sang-Yong SON ; Shin-Hoo PARK ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Tae-Yong KIM ; Woo Kyun BAE ; Woong Sub KOOM ; Yeseob JEE ; Yoo Min KIM ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Young Suk PARK ; Hye Sook HAN ; Su Youn NAM ; Seong-Ho KONG ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2023;23(1):3-106
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.
7.Donor sex and donor-recipient sex disparity do not affect hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after living donor liver transplantation
Rak Kyun OH ; Shin HWANG ; Gi-Won SONG ; Chul-Soo AHN ; Deok-Bog MOON ; Tae-Yong HA ; Dong-Hwan JUNG ; Gil-Chun PARK ; Young-In YOON ; Woo-Hyoung KANG
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2023;105(3):133-140
Purpose:
Studies have yielded contradictory results on whether donor sex and donor-recipient sex disparity affect hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The present study assessed whether donor sex or donor-recipient sex disparity affects HCC recurrence after LDLT at a high-volume center.
Methods:
This study included 772 HCC patients who underwent LDLT between January 2006 and December 2015 at Asan Medical Center. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on the sex of the donor and recipient: male-to-male (n = 490, 63.5%), male-to-female (n = 75, 9.7%), female-to-male (n = 170, 22.0%), and female-to-female (n = 37, 4.8%).
Results:
Disease-free survival (DFS; P = 0.372) and overall survival (OS; P = 0.591) did not differ significantly among the 4 groups. DFS also did not differ significantly between LDLT recipients with male and female donors (P = 0.792) or between male and female recipients (P = 0.084). After patient matching with an α-FP/des-γ-carboxy prothrombin/tumor volume score cutoff of 5logs, donor-recipient sex disparity did not significantly affect DFS (P = 0.598) or OS (P = 0.777). There were also no differences in DFS in matched LDLT recipients with male and female donors (P = 0.312) or between male and female recipients (P = 0.374).
Conclusion
Neither donor sex nor donor-recipient sex disparity significantly affected posttransplant HCC recurrence.
8.Erratum: Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidencebased, Multidisciplinary Approach
Tae-Han KIM ; In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Baek-Hui KIM ; Bang Wool EOM ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chang In CHOI ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chung sik GONG ; Dong Jin KIM ; Arthur Eung-Hyuck CHO ; Eun Jeong GONG ; Geum Jong SONG ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hye Seong AHN ; Hyun LIM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Kyoung Doo SONG ; Minkyu JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Sang-Yong SON ; Shin-Hoo PARK ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Tae-Yong KIM ; Woo Kyun BAE ; Woong Sub KOOM ; Yeseob JEE ; Yoo Min KIM ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Young Suk PARK ; Hye Sook HAN ; Su Youn NAM ; Seong-Ho KONG
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2023;23(2):365-373
9.Association Between Plasma Homocysteine Level and Mortality:A Mendelian Randomization Study
Chang Kyun CHOI ; Sun-Seog KWEON ; Young-Hoon LEE ; Hae-Sung NAM ; Seong-Woo CHOI ; Hye-Yeon KIM ; Min-Ho SHIN
Korean Circulation Journal 2023;53(10):710-719
Background and Objectives:
In previous studies, high homocysteine levels were associated with high cardiovascular mortality. However, these results were inconsistent with those of randomized controlled trials. We aimed to evaluate the causal role of homocysteine on allcause and cardiovascular mortality using Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis.
Methods:
This study included the 10,005 participants in the Namwon Study. In conventional observational analysis, age, sex, survey years, lifestyles, body mass index, comorbidities, and serum folate level were adjusted using multivariate Cox proportional regression. MR using 2-stage least squares regression was used to evaluate the association between genetically predicted plasma homocysteine levels and mortality. Age, sex, and survey years were adjusted for each stage. The methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) polymorphism was used as an instrumental variable for predicting plasma homocysteine levels.
Results:
Observed homocysteine levels were positively associated with all-cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26–1.54) and cardiovascular (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.28–2.06) mortality when plasma homocysteine levels doubled. However, these associations were not significant in MR analysis. The HRs of doubling genetically predicted plasma homocysteine levels for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were 0.99 (95% CI, 0.62–1.57) and 1.76 (95% CI, 0.54–5.77), respectively.
Conclusions
This MR analysis did not support a causal role for elevated plasma homocysteine concentrations in premature deaths.
10.Therapeutic Effect of HDAC5 Binding and Cell Penetrating Peptide for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Deogil KIM ; Dong Woo LEE ; Gookjin YOON ; Eui Kyun JEONG ; Moon Sil CHOI ; Hoo Cheol LEE ; Yoon Shin PARK ; Chong Pyung CHUNG ; Jue-Yeon LEE ; Yoon Jeong PARK
Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine 2023;20(6):965-979
BACKGROUND:
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is an incurable disease that negatively influences the quality of life of patients. Current and emerging therapies target proinflammatory cytokines and/or receptors to downregulate proinflammatory responses, but insufficient remission requires other therapeutic agents. Herein, we report that the synthetic antiinflammatory peptide 15 (SAP15) is capable of cell penetration and anti-inflammatory activity in human macrophages.
METHODS:
SAP15 was labeled with fluorescence and administered to human leukemia monocytic cells (THP-1) cells for cell penetration analysis. Using biolayer interferometry analysis, the binding affinity of SAP15 with histone deacetylase 5 (HDAC5) was measured. SAP15-treated THP-1 cells were analyzed by protein phosphorylation assay, flow cytometry, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). In addition, in vivo analysis of the therapeutic effect on IBD was observed in a dextran sulfate sodium (DSS)-induced model. Samples from SAP15-treated mice were analyzed at both the macroscopic and microscopic levels using ELISA, myeloperoxidase (MPO) assays, and histological evaluations.
RESULTS:
SAP15 was internalized within the cytosol and nucleus of THP-1 cells and bound to the HDAC5 protein. SAP15-treated macrophages were assessed for protein phosphorylation and showed inhibited phosphorylation of HDAC5 and other immune-related proteins, which led to increased M2-like macrophage markers and decreased M1-like macrophage markers and tumor necrosis factor-a and interleukin-6 cytokine levels. The SAP15 treatment on IBD model showed significant recovery of colon length. Further histological analysis of colon demonstrated the therapeutic effect of SAP15 on mucosal layer. Moreover, proinflammatory cytokine levels and MPO activity from the plasma show that SAP15 is effective in reduced proinflammatory responses.
CONCLUSION
These findings suggest that SAP15 is a novel peptide with a novel cell-penetrating peptide with antiinflammatory property that can be used as a therapeutic agent for IBD and other inflammatory diseases.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail