1.A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study Comparing 3 Different Spine Pedicle Screw Fixation Methods: Freehand, Fluoroscopy-Guided, and Robot-Assisted Techniques
Yoon Ha HWANG ; Byeong-Jin HA ; Hyung Cheol KIM ; Byung Ho LEE ; Jeong-Yoon PARK ; Dong-Kyu CHIN ; Seong YI
Neurospine 2024;21(1):83-94
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic spine surgery and conventional pedicle screw fixation in lumbar degenerative disease. We evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic surgery.
Methods:
This study employed propensity score matching and included 3 groups: robot-assisted mini-open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (robotic surgery, RS), c-arm guided minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (C-arm guidance, CG), and freehand open PLIF (free of guidance, FG) (54 patients each). The mean follow-up period was 2.2 years. The preoperative spine condition was considered. Accuracy was evaluated using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (GRS score) and Babu classification (Babu score). Radiological outcomes included adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and mechanical failure. Clinical outcomes were assessed based on the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short Form health survey, and clinical ASD rate.
Results:
Accuracy was higher in the RS group (p < 0.01) than in other groups. The GRS score was lower in the CG group, whereas the Babu score was lower in the FG group compared with the RS group. No significant differences were observed in radiological and clinical outcomes among the 3 groups. Regression analysis identified preoperative facet degeneration, GRS and Babu scores as significant variables for radiological and clinical ASD. Mechanical failure was influenced by the GRS score and patients’ age.
Conclusion
This study showed the superior accuracy of robotic spine surgery compared with conventional techniques. When combined with minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery is advantageous with reduced ligament and muscle damage associated with traditional open procedures.
2.Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations by Korean Dementia Association
Kee Hyung PARK ; Geon Ha KIM ; Chi-Hun KIM ; Seong-Ho KOH ; So Young MOON ; Young Ho PARK ; Sang Won SEO ; Bora YOON ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Byeong C. KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Hae Ri NA ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Chan-Nyoung LEE ; Hak Young RHEE ; San JUNG ; Jee Hyang JEONG ; Hojin CHOI ; Dong Won YANG ; Seong Hye CHOI
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2024;23(4):165-187
Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.
3.A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study Comparing 3 Different Spine Pedicle Screw Fixation Methods: Freehand, Fluoroscopy-Guided, and Robot-Assisted Techniques
Yoon Ha HWANG ; Byeong-Jin HA ; Hyung Cheol KIM ; Byung Ho LEE ; Jeong-Yoon PARK ; Dong-Kyu CHIN ; Seong YI
Neurospine 2024;21(1):83-94
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic spine surgery and conventional pedicle screw fixation in lumbar degenerative disease. We evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic surgery.
Methods:
This study employed propensity score matching and included 3 groups: robot-assisted mini-open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (robotic surgery, RS), c-arm guided minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (C-arm guidance, CG), and freehand open PLIF (free of guidance, FG) (54 patients each). The mean follow-up period was 2.2 years. The preoperative spine condition was considered. Accuracy was evaluated using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (GRS score) and Babu classification (Babu score). Radiological outcomes included adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and mechanical failure. Clinical outcomes were assessed based on the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short Form health survey, and clinical ASD rate.
Results:
Accuracy was higher in the RS group (p < 0.01) than in other groups. The GRS score was lower in the CG group, whereas the Babu score was lower in the FG group compared with the RS group. No significant differences were observed in radiological and clinical outcomes among the 3 groups. Regression analysis identified preoperative facet degeneration, GRS and Babu scores as significant variables for radiological and clinical ASD. Mechanical failure was influenced by the GRS score and patients’ age.
Conclusion
This study showed the superior accuracy of robotic spine surgery compared with conventional techniques. When combined with minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery is advantageous with reduced ligament and muscle damage associated with traditional open procedures.
4.A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study Comparing 3 Different Spine Pedicle Screw Fixation Methods: Freehand, Fluoroscopy-Guided, and Robot-Assisted Techniques
Yoon Ha HWANG ; Byeong-Jin HA ; Hyung Cheol KIM ; Byung Ho LEE ; Jeong-Yoon PARK ; Dong-Kyu CHIN ; Seong YI
Neurospine 2024;21(1):83-94
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic spine surgery and conventional pedicle screw fixation in lumbar degenerative disease. We evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic surgery.
Methods:
This study employed propensity score matching and included 3 groups: robot-assisted mini-open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (robotic surgery, RS), c-arm guided minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (C-arm guidance, CG), and freehand open PLIF (free of guidance, FG) (54 patients each). The mean follow-up period was 2.2 years. The preoperative spine condition was considered. Accuracy was evaluated using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (GRS score) and Babu classification (Babu score). Radiological outcomes included adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and mechanical failure. Clinical outcomes were assessed based on the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short Form health survey, and clinical ASD rate.
Results:
Accuracy was higher in the RS group (p < 0.01) than in other groups. The GRS score was lower in the CG group, whereas the Babu score was lower in the FG group compared with the RS group. No significant differences were observed in radiological and clinical outcomes among the 3 groups. Regression analysis identified preoperative facet degeneration, GRS and Babu scores as significant variables for radiological and clinical ASD. Mechanical failure was influenced by the GRS score and patients’ age.
Conclusion
This study showed the superior accuracy of robotic spine surgery compared with conventional techniques. When combined with minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery is advantageous with reduced ligament and muscle damage associated with traditional open procedures.
5.Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations by Korean Dementia Association
Kee Hyung PARK ; Geon Ha KIM ; Chi-Hun KIM ; Seong-Ho KOH ; So Young MOON ; Young Ho PARK ; Sang Won SEO ; Bora YOON ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Byeong C. KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Hae Ri NA ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Chan-Nyoung LEE ; Hak Young RHEE ; San JUNG ; Jee Hyang JEONG ; Hojin CHOI ; Dong Won YANG ; Seong Hye CHOI
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2024;23(4):165-187
Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.
6.Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations by Korean Dementia Association
Kee Hyung PARK ; Geon Ha KIM ; Chi-Hun KIM ; Seong-Ho KOH ; So Young MOON ; Young Ho PARK ; Sang Won SEO ; Bora YOON ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Byeong C. KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Hae Ri NA ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Chan-Nyoung LEE ; Hak Young RHEE ; San JUNG ; Jee Hyang JEONG ; Hojin CHOI ; Dong Won YANG ; Seong Hye CHOI
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2024;23(4):165-187
Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.
7.A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study Comparing 3 Different Spine Pedicle Screw Fixation Methods: Freehand, Fluoroscopy-Guided, and Robot-Assisted Techniques
Yoon Ha HWANG ; Byeong-Jin HA ; Hyung Cheol KIM ; Byung Ho LEE ; Jeong-Yoon PARK ; Dong-Kyu CHIN ; Seong YI
Neurospine 2024;21(1):83-94
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic spine surgery and conventional pedicle screw fixation in lumbar degenerative disease. We evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic surgery.
Methods:
This study employed propensity score matching and included 3 groups: robot-assisted mini-open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (robotic surgery, RS), c-arm guided minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (C-arm guidance, CG), and freehand open PLIF (free of guidance, FG) (54 patients each). The mean follow-up period was 2.2 years. The preoperative spine condition was considered. Accuracy was evaluated using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (GRS score) and Babu classification (Babu score). Radiological outcomes included adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and mechanical failure. Clinical outcomes were assessed based on the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short Form health survey, and clinical ASD rate.
Results:
Accuracy was higher in the RS group (p < 0.01) than in other groups. The GRS score was lower in the CG group, whereas the Babu score was lower in the FG group compared with the RS group. No significant differences were observed in radiological and clinical outcomes among the 3 groups. Regression analysis identified preoperative facet degeneration, GRS and Babu scores as significant variables for radiological and clinical ASD. Mechanical failure was influenced by the GRS score and patients’ age.
Conclusion
This study showed the superior accuracy of robotic spine surgery compared with conventional techniques. When combined with minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery is advantageous with reduced ligament and muscle damage associated with traditional open procedures.
8.Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations by Korean Dementia Association
Kee Hyung PARK ; Geon Ha KIM ; Chi-Hun KIM ; Seong-Ho KOH ; So Young MOON ; Young Ho PARK ; Sang Won SEO ; Bora YOON ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Byeong C. KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Hae Ri NA ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Chan-Nyoung LEE ; Hak Young RHEE ; San JUNG ; Jee Hyang JEONG ; Hojin CHOI ; Dong Won YANG ; Seong Hye CHOI
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2024;23(4):165-187
Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.
9.A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study Comparing 3 Different Spine Pedicle Screw Fixation Methods: Freehand, Fluoroscopy-Guided, and Robot-Assisted Techniques
Yoon Ha HWANG ; Byeong-Jin HA ; Hyung Cheol KIM ; Byung Ho LEE ; Jeong-Yoon PARK ; Dong-Kyu CHIN ; Seong YI
Neurospine 2024;21(1):83-94
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic spine surgery and conventional pedicle screw fixation in lumbar degenerative disease. We evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic surgery.
Methods:
This study employed propensity score matching and included 3 groups: robot-assisted mini-open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (robotic surgery, RS), c-arm guided minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (C-arm guidance, CG), and freehand open PLIF (free of guidance, FG) (54 patients each). The mean follow-up period was 2.2 years. The preoperative spine condition was considered. Accuracy was evaluated using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (GRS score) and Babu classification (Babu score). Radiological outcomes included adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and mechanical failure. Clinical outcomes were assessed based on the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short Form health survey, and clinical ASD rate.
Results:
Accuracy was higher in the RS group (p < 0.01) than in other groups. The GRS score was lower in the CG group, whereas the Babu score was lower in the FG group compared with the RS group. No significant differences were observed in radiological and clinical outcomes among the 3 groups. Regression analysis identified preoperative facet degeneration, GRS and Babu scores as significant variables for radiological and clinical ASD. Mechanical failure was influenced by the GRS score and patients’ age.
Conclusion
This study showed the superior accuracy of robotic spine surgery compared with conventional techniques. When combined with minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery is advantageous with reduced ligament and muscle damage associated with traditional open procedures.
10.Practice guidelines for managing extrahepatic biliary tract cancers
Hyung Sun KIM ; Mee Joo KANG ; Jingu KANG ; Kyubo KIM ; Bohyun KIM ; Seong-Hun KIM ; Soo Jin KIM ; Yong-Il KIM ; Joo Young KIM ; Jin Sil KIM ; Haeryoung KIM ; Hyo Jung KIM ; Ji Hae NAHM ; Won Suk PARK ; Eunkyu PARK ; Joo Kyung PARK ; Jin Myung PARK ; Byeong Jun SONG ; Yong Chan SHIN ; Keun Soo AHN ; Sang Myung WOO ; Jeong Il YU ; Changhoon YOO ; Kyoungbun LEE ; Dong Ho LEE ; Myung Ah LEE ; Seung Eun LEE ; Ik Jae LEE ; Huisong LEE ; Jung Ho IM ; Kee-Taek JANG ; Hye Young JANG ; Sun-Young JUN ; Hong Jae CHON ; Min Kyu JUNG ; Yong Eun CHUNG ; Jae Uk CHONG ; Eunae CHO ; Eui Kyu CHIE ; Sae Byeol CHOI ; Seo-Yeon CHOI ; Seong Ji CHOI ; Joon Young CHOI ; Hye-Jeong CHOI ; Seung-Mo HONG ; Ji Hyung HONG ; Tae Ho HONG ; Shin Hye HWANG ; In Gyu HWANG ; Joon Seong PARK
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(2):161-202
Background:
s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021.
Methods:
Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop.
Results:
In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing.
Conclusions
The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail