Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic, disabling, and functional bowel disorder that significantly affects social functioning and reduces quality of life and increases social costs. The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility published clinical practice guidelines on the management of IBS based on a systematic review of the literature in 2017, and planned to revise these guidelines in light of new evidence on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of IBS. The current revised version of the guidelines is consistent with the previous version and targets adults diagnosed with or suspected of having IBS. These guidelines were developed using a combination of de novo and adaptation methods, with analyses of existing guidelines and discussions within the committee, leading to the identification of key clinical questions. Finally, the guidelines consisted of 22 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and risk factors of IBS, 4 regarding diagnostic modalities and strategies, 2 regarding general management, and 13 regarding medical treatment. For each statement, the advantages, disadvantages, and precautions were thoroughly detailed. The modified Delphi method was used to achieve expert consensus to adopt the core recommendations of the guidelines. These guidelines serve as a reference for clinicians (including primary care physicians, general healthcare providers, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients, helping them to make informed decisions regarding IBS management.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic, disabling, and functional bowel disorder that significantly affects social functioning and reduces quality of life and increases social costs. The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility published clinical practice guidelines on the management of IBS based on a systematic review of the literature in 2017, and planned to revise these guidelines in light of new evidence on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of IBS. The current revised version of the guidelines is consistent with the previous version and targets adults diagnosed with or suspected of having IBS. These guidelines were developed using a combination of de novo and adaptation methods, with analyses of existing guidelines and discussions within the committee, leading to the identification of key clinical questions. Finally, the guidelines consisted of 22 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and risk factors of IBS, 4 regarding diagnostic modalities and strategies, 2 regarding general management, and 13 regarding medical treatment. For each statement, the advantages, disadvantages, and precautions were thoroughly detailed. The modified Delphi method was used to achieve expert consensus to adopt the core recommendations of the guidelines. These guidelines serve as a reference for clinicians (including primary care physicians, general healthcare providers, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients, helping them to make informed decisions regarding IBS management.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic, disabling, and functional bowel disorder that significantly affects social functioning and reduces quality of life and increases social costs. The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility published clinical practice guidelines on the management of IBS based on a systematic review of the literature in 2017, and planned to revise these guidelines in light of new evidence on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of IBS. The current revised version of the guidelines is consistent with the previous version and targets adults diagnosed with or suspected of having IBS. These guidelines were developed using a combination of de novo and adaptation methods, with analyses of existing guidelines and discussions within the committee, leading to the identification of key clinical questions. Finally, the guidelines consisted of 22 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and risk factors of IBS, 4 regarding diagnostic modalities and strategies, 2 regarding general management, and 13 regarding medical treatment. For each statement, the advantages, disadvantages, and precautions were thoroughly detailed. The modified Delphi method was used to achieve expert consensus to adopt the core recommendations of the guidelines. These guidelines serve as a reference for clinicians (including primary care physicians, general healthcare providers, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients, helping them to make informed decisions regarding IBS management.

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.

Objective: To evaluate C2 muscle preservation effect and the radiological and clinical outcomes after C2 recapping laminoplasty. Methods: Fourteen consecutive patients who underwent C2 recapping laminoplasty around C1–2 level were enrolled. To evaluate muscle preservation effect, the authors conducted a morphological measurement of extensor muscles between the operated and nonoperated side. Two surgeons measured the cross-sectional area (CSA) of obliquus capitis inferior (OCI) and semispinalis cervicis (SSC) muscle before and after surgery to determine atrophy rates (ARs). Additionally, we examined range of motion (ROM), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), neck visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score to assess potential changes in alignment and consequent clinical outcomes following posterior cervical surgery. Results: We measured the CSA of OCI and SSC before surgery, and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Based on these measurements, the AR of the nonoperated SSC was 0.1% ± 8.5%, the AR of the operated OCI was 2.0% ± 7.2%, and the AR of the nonoperated OCI was -0.7% ± 5.1% at the 12 months after surgery. However, the AR of the operated side’s SSC was 11.2% ± 12.5%, which is a relatively higher value than other measurements. Despite the atrophic change of SSC on the operated side, there were no prominent changes observed in SVA, C0–2 ROM, and C2–7 ROM between preoperative and 12 months postoperative measurements, which were 11.8 ± 10.9 mm, 16.3° ± 5.9°, and 48.7° ± 7.7° preoperatively, and 14.1 ± 11.6 mm, 16.1° ± 7.2°, and 44.0° ± 10.3° at 12 months postoperative, respectively. Improvement was also noted in VAS, NDI, and JOA scores after surgery with JOA recovery rate of 77.3% ± 29.6%. Conclusion C2 recapping laminoplasty could be a useful tool for addressing pathologies around the upper cervical spine, potentially mitigating muscle atrophy and reducing postoperative neck pain, while maintaining sagittal alignment and ROM.

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.

Objective: To evaluate C2 muscle preservation effect and the radiological and clinical outcomes after C2 recapping laminoplasty. Methods: Fourteen consecutive patients who underwent C2 recapping laminoplasty around C1–2 level were enrolled. To evaluate muscle preservation effect, the authors conducted a morphological measurement of extensor muscles between the operated and nonoperated side. Two surgeons measured the cross-sectional area (CSA) of obliquus capitis inferior (OCI) and semispinalis cervicis (SSC) muscle before and after surgery to determine atrophy rates (ARs). Additionally, we examined range of motion (ROM), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), neck visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score to assess potential changes in alignment and consequent clinical outcomes following posterior cervical surgery. Results: We measured the CSA of OCI and SSC before surgery, and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Based on these measurements, the AR of the nonoperated SSC was 0.1% ± 8.5%, the AR of the operated OCI was 2.0% ± 7.2%, and the AR of the nonoperated OCI was -0.7% ± 5.1% at the 12 months after surgery. However, the AR of the operated side’s SSC was 11.2% ± 12.5%, which is a relatively higher value than other measurements. Despite the atrophic change of SSC on the operated side, there were no prominent changes observed in SVA, C0–2 ROM, and C2–7 ROM between preoperative and 12 months postoperative measurements, which were 11.8 ± 10.9 mm, 16.3° ± 5.9°, and 48.7° ± 7.7° preoperatively, and 14.1 ± 11.6 mm, 16.1° ± 7.2°, and 44.0° ± 10.3° at 12 months postoperative, respectively. Improvement was also noted in VAS, NDI, and JOA scores after surgery with JOA recovery rate of 77.3% ± 29.6%. Conclusion C2 recapping laminoplasty could be a useful tool for addressing pathologies around the upper cervical spine, potentially mitigating muscle atrophy and reducing postoperative neck pain, while maintaining sagittal alignment and ROM.

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.

Objective: To evaluate C2 muscle preservation effect and the radiological and clinical outcomes after C2 recapping laminoplasty. Methods: Fourteen consecutive patients who underwent C2 recapping laminoplasty around C1–2 level were enrolled. To evaluate muscle preservation effect, the authors conducted a morphological measurement of extensor muscles between the operated and nonoperated side. Two surgeons measured the cross-sectional area (CSA) of obliquus capitis inferior (OCI) and semispinalis cervicis (SSC) muscle before and after surgery to determine atrophy rates (ARs). Additionally, we examined range of motion (ROM), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), neck visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score to assess potential changes in alignment and consequent clinical outcomes following posterior cervical surgery. Results: We measured the CSA of OCI and SSC before surgery, and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Based on these measurements, the AR of the nonoperated SSC was 0.1% ± 8.5%, the AR of the operated OCI was 2.0% ± 7.2%, and the AR of the nonoperated OCI was -0.7% ± 5.1% at the 12 months after surgery. However, the AR of the operated side’s SSC was 11.2% ± 12.5%, which is a relatively higher value than other measurements. Despite the atrophic change of SSC on the operated side, there were no prominent changes observed in SVA, C0–2 ROM, and C2–7 ROM between preoperative and 12 months postoperative measurements, which were 11.8 ± 10.9 mm, 16.3° ± 5.9°, and 48.7° ± 7.7° preoperatively, and 14.1 ± 11.6 mm, 16.1° ± 7.2°, and 44.0° ± 10.3° at 12 months postoperative, respectively. Improvement was also noted in VAS, NDI, and JOA scores after surgery with JOA recovery rate of 77.3% ± 29.6%. Conclusion C2 recapping laminoplasty could be a useful tool for addressing pathologies around the upper cervical spine, potentially mitigating muscle atrophy and reducing postoperative neck pain, while maintaining sagittal alignment and ROM.

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.