1.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
Purpose:
The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH.
Methods:
A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups.
Results:
The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867).
Conclusion
The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.
2.O-arm navigation-based transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation: an innovative preliminary study
Dong Hyun LEE ; Choon Keun PARK ; Jin-Sung KIM ; Jin Sub HWANG ; Jin Young LEE ; Dong-Geun LEE ; Jae-Won JANG ; Jun Yong KIM ; Yong-Eun CHO ; Dong Chan LEE
Asian Spine Journal 2025;19(2):194-204
Methods:
The UBE approach targeted the ventral part of the superior articular process in the transforaminal UBE setup, specifically for upper lumbar disc herniation, with an approach angle of approximately 30º on the axial plane. Intraoperative navigation was employed to improve puncture accuracy for this relatively unfamiliar surgical technique. Navigation-assisted transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy was performed on four patients presenting with back or leg discomfort due to disc herniation at the L1–L2 or L2–L3 levels.
Results:
All patients experienced symptom relief and were discharged on postoperative day 2.
Conclusions
Transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy is a viable therapeutic option for upper lumbar paracentral disc herniation, which is typically associated with poor prognosis. Integrating navigation integration into this novel approach enhances precision and safety.
3.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
Purpose:
The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH.
Methods:
A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups.
Results:
The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867).
Conclusion
The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.
4.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
Purpose:
The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH.
Methods:
A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups.
Results:
The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867).
Conclusion
The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.
5.O-arm navigation-based transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation: an innovative preliminary study
Dong Hyun LEE ; Choon Keun PARK ; Jin-Sung KIM ; Jin Sub HWANG ; Jin Young LEE ; Dong-Geun LEE ; Jae-Won JANG ; Jun Yong KIM ; Yong-Eun CHO ; Dong Chan LEE
Asian Spine Journal 2025;19(2):194-204
Methods:
The UBE approach targeted the ventral part of the superior articular process in the transforaminal UBE setup, specifically for upper lumbar disc herniation, with an approach angle of approximately 30º on the axial plane. Intraoperative navigation was employed to improve puncture accuracy for this relatively unfamiliar surgical technique. Navigation-assisted transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy was performed on four patients presenting with back or leg discomfort due to disc herniation at the L1–L2 or L2–L3 levels.
Results:
All patients experienced symptom relief and were discharged on postoperative day 2.
Conclusions
Transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy is a viable therapeutic option for upper lumbar paracentral disc herniation, which is typically associated with poor prognosis. Integrating navigation integration into this novel approach enhances precision and safety.
6.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
Purpose:
The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH.
Methods:
A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups.
Results:
The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867).
Conclusion
The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.
7.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
Purpose:
The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH.
Methods:
A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups.
Results:
The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867).
Conclusion
The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.
8.O-arm navigation-based transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation: an innovative preliminary study
Dong Hyun LEE ; Choon Keun PARK ; Jin-Sung KIM ; Jin Sub HWANG ; Jin Young LEE ; Dong-Geun LEE ; Jae-Won JANG ; Jun Yong KIM ; Yong-Eun CHO ; Dong Chan LEE
Asian Spine Journal 2025;19(2):194-204
Methods:
The UBE approach targeted the ventral part of the superior articular process in the transforaminal UBE setup, specifically for upper lumbar disc herniation, with an approach angle of approximately 30º on the axial plane. Intraoperative navigation was employed to improve puncture accuracy for this relatively unfamiliar surgical technique. Navigation-assisted transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy was performed on four patients presenting with back or leg discomfort due to disc herniation at the L1–L2 or L2–L3 levels.
Results:
All patients experienced symptom relief and were discharged on postoperative day 2.
Conclusions
Transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy is a viable therapeutic option for upper lumbar paracentral disc herniation, which is typically associated with poor prognosis. Integrating navigation integration into this novel approach enhances precision and safety.
9.Safety Profile of Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery Compared to Conventional Microscopic Approach: A Pooled Analysis of 2 Randomized Controlled Trials
Sang-Min PARK ; Kwang-Sup SONG ; Dae-Woong HAM ; Ho-Joong KIM ; Min-Seok KANG ; Ki-Han YOU ; Choon Keun PARK ; Dong-Keun LEE ; Jin-Sung KIM ; Hong-Jae LEE ; Hyun-Jin PARK
Neurospine 2024;21(4):1190-1198
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.
10.Safety Profile of Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery Compared to Conventional Microscopic Approach: A Pooled Analysis of 2 Randomized Controlled Trials
Sang-Min PARK ; Kwang-Sup SONG ; Dae-Woong HAM ; Ho-Joong KIM ; Min-Seok KANG ; Ki-Han YOU ; Choon Keun PARK ; Dong-Keun LEE ; Jin-Sung KIM ; Hong-Jae LEE ; Hyun-Jin PARK
Neurospine 2024;21(4):1190-1198
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.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail