This review examines the challenges associated with occupational disease surveillance in Korea, particularly emphasizing the limitations of current data sources such as the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (IACI) statistics and special health examinations. The IACI system undercounts cases due to its emphasis on severe diseases and restrictions on approvals. Special health examinations, although they cover a broad workforce, are constrained by their annual scheduling, which leads to missed acute illnesses and subclinical conditions. The paper also explores the history of occupational disease surveillance in Korea, highlighting the fragmented and disease-specific approach of earlier systems. The authors introduce the newly established Korea Occupational Disease Surveillance Center (KODSC), a comprehensive nationwide system designed to gather, analyze, and interpret data on occupational diseases through a network of regional centers. By incorporating hospital-based surveillance and focusing on acute poisonings and other sentinel events, the KODSC aims to overcome the limitations of previous systems and promote collaboration with various agencies. Although it is still in the early stages of implementation, the KODSC demonstrates potential for improving data accuracy and contributing valuable insights for public health policy.

This review examines the challenges associated with occupational disease surveillance in Korea, particularly emphasizing the limitations of current data sources such as the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (IACI) statistics and special health examinations. The IACI system undercounts cases due to its emphasis on severe diseases and restrictions on approvals. Special health examinations, although they cover a broad workforce, are constrained by their annual scheduling, which leads to missed acute illnesses and subclinical conditions. The paper also explores the history of occupational disease surveillance in Korea, highlighting the fragmented and disease-specific approach of earlier systems. The authors introduce the newly established Korea Occupational Disease Surveillance Center (KODSC), a comprehensive nationwide system designed to gather, analyze, and interpret data on occupational diseases through a network of regional centers. By incorporating hospital-based surveillance and focusing on acute poisonings and other sentinel events, the KODSC aims to overcome the limitations of previous systems and promote collaboration with various agencies. Although it is still in the early stages of implementation, the KODSC demonstrates potential for improving data accuracy and contributing valuable insights for public health policy.

This review examines the challenges associated with occupational disease surveillance in Korea, particularly emphasizing the limitations of current data sources such as the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (IACI) statistics and special health examinations. The IACI system undercounts cases due to its emphasis on severe diseases and restrictions on approvals. Special health examinations, although they cover a broad workforce, are constrained by their annual scheduling, which leads to missed acute illnesses and subclinical conditions. The paper also explores the history of occupational disease surveillance in Korea, highlighting the fragmented and disease-specific approach of earlier systems. The authors introduce the newly established Korea Occupational Disease Surveillance Center (KODSC), a comprehensive nationwide system designed to gather, analyze, and interpret data on occupational diseases through a network of regional centers. By incorporating hospital-based surveillance and focusing on acute poisonings and other sentinel events, the KODSC aims to overcome the limitations of previous systems and promote collaboration with various agencies. Although it is still in the early stages of implementation, the KODSC demonstrates potential for improving data accuracy and contributing valuable insights for public health policy.

This review examines the challenges associated with occupational disease surveillance in Korea, particularly emphasizing the limitations of current data sources such as the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (IACI) statistics and special health examinations. The IACI system undercounts cases due to its emphasis on severe diseases and restrictions on approvals. Special health examinations, although they cover a broad workforce, are constrained by their annual scheduling, which leads to missed acute illnesses and subclinical conditions. The paper also explores the history of occupational disease surveillance in Korea, highlighting the fragmented and disease-specific approach of earlier systems. The authors introduce the newly established Korea Occupational Disease Surveillance Center (KODSC), a comprehensive nationwide system designed to gather, analyze, and interpret data on occupational diseases through a network of regional centers. By incorporating hospital-based surveillance and focusing on acute poisonings and other sentinel events, the KODSC aims to overcome the limitations of previous systems and promote collaboration with various agencies. Although it is still in the early stages of implementation, the KODSC demonstrates potential for improving data accuracy and contributing valuable insights for public health policy.

This review examines the challenges associated with occupational disease surveillance in Korea, particularly emphasizing the limitations of current data sources such as the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (IACI) statistics and special health examinations. The IACI system undercounts cases due to its emphasis on severe diseases and restrictions on approvals. Special health examinations, although they cover a broad workforce, are constrained by their annual scheduling, which leads to missed acute illnesses and subclinical conditions. The paper also explores the history of occupational disease surveillance in Korea, highlighting the fragmented and disease-specific approach of earlier systems. The authors introduce the newly established Korea Occupational Disease Surveillance Center (KODSC), a comprehensive nationwide system designed to gather, analyze, and interpret data on occupational diseases through a network of regional centers. By incorporating hospital-based surveillance and focusing on acute poisonings and other sentinel events, the KODSC aims to overcome the limitations of previous systems and promote collaboration with various agencies. Although it is still in the early stages of implementation, the KODSC demonstrates potential for improving data accuracy and contributing valuable insights for public health policy.

Background: In this study, we aimed to investigate whether opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Methods: Adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgery were randomly assigned to either the opioid-using anesthesia (OUA) or the OSA groups. In the OUA group, remifentanil was administered as an opioid during general anesthesia. In the OSA group, apart from a single dose of 5 μg/kg of alfentanil for tracheal intubation, no other opioids were used. In both groups, a multimodal intravenous non-opioid analgesic regimen was used preferentially in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV, assessed by symptoms until the postoperative day 1. Results: A total of 120 patients were included in this study. The incidence of nausea in the PACU was significantly lower in the OSA group compared to in the OUA group (31.7% in the OSA group vs. 51.7% in the OUA group, P = 0.026). Pain scores and the incidence of opioid analgesic administration were lower in the OSA group during PACU stay, resulting in a significantly lower number of patients requiring rescue opioid analgesics (3.3% vs. 18.3%, P = 0.008). There were no significant differences in intraoperative vital signs, hemodynamic interventions, or duration of PACU and hospital stay between the two groups. Conclusions OSA significantly reduced postoperative nausea, pain scores, and the need for rescue analgesics in the PACU without increasing hemodynamic instability in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery.

Background: In this study, we aimed to investigate whether opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Methods: Adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgery were randomly assigned to either the opioid-using anesthesia (OUA) or the OSA groups. In the OUA group, remifentanil was administered as an opioid during general anesthesia. In the OSA group, apart from a single dose of 5 μg/kg of alfentanil for tracheal intubation, no other opioids were used. In both groups, a multimodal intravenous non-opioid analgesic regimen was used preferentially in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV, assessed by symptoms until the postoperative day 1. Results: A total of 120 patients were included in this study. The incidence of nausea in the PACU was significantly lower in the OSA group compared to in the OUA group (31.7% in the OSA group vs. 51.7% in the OUA group, P = 0.026). Pain scores and the incidence of opioid analgesic administration were lower in the OSA group during PACU stay, resulting in a significantly lower number of patients requiring rescue opioid analgesics (3.3% vs. 18.3%, P = 0.008). There were no significant differences in intraoperative vital signs, hemodynamic interventions, or duration of PACU and hospital stay between the two groups. Conclusions OSA significantly reduced postoperative nausea, pain scores, and the need for rescue analgesics in the PACU without increasing hemodynamic instability in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery.

Background: In this study, we aimed to investigate whether opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Methods: Adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgery were randomly assigned to either the opioid-using anesthesia (OUA) or the OSA groups. In the OUA group, remifentanil was administered as an opioid during general anesthesia. In the OSA group, apart from a single dose of 5 μg/kg of alfentanil for tracheal intubation, no other opioids were used. In both groups, a multimodal intravenous non-opioid analgesic regimen was used preferentially in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV, assessed by symptoms until the postoperative day 1. Results: A total of 120 patients were included in this study. The incidence of nausea in the PACU was significantly lower in the OSA group compared to in the OUA group (31.7% in the OSA group vs. 51.7% in the OUA group, P = 0.026). Pain scores and the incidence of opioid analgesic administration were lower in the OSA group during PACU stay, resulting in a significantly lower number of patients requiring rescue opioid analgesics (3.3% vs. 18.3%, P = 0.008). There were no significant differences in intraoperative vital signs, hemodynamic interventions, or duration of PACU and hospital stay between the two groups. Conclusions OSA significantly reduced postoperative nausea, pain scores, and the need for rescue analgesics in the PACU without increasing hemodynamic instability in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery.

Background: In this study, we aimed to investigate whether opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Methods: Adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgery were randomly assigned to either the opioid-using anesthesia (OUA) or the OSA groups. In the OUA group, remifentanil was administered as an opioid during general anesthesia. In the OSA group, apart from a single dose of 5 μg/kg of alfentanil for tracheal intubation, no other opioids were used. In both groups, a multimodal intravenous non-opioid analgesic regimen was used preferentially in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV, assessed by symptoms until the postoperative day 1. Results: A total of 120 patients were included in this study. The incidence of nausea in the PACU was significantly lower in the OSA group compared to in the OUA group (31.7% in the OSA group vs. 51.7% in the OUA group, P = 0.026). Pain scores and the incidence of opioid analgesic administration were lower in the OSA group during PACU stay, resulting in a significantly lower number of patients requiring rescue opioid analgesics (3.3% vs. 18.3%, P = 0.008). There were no significant differences in intraoperative vital signs, hemodynamic interventions, or duration of PACU and hospital stay between the two groups. Conclusions OSA significantly reduced postoperative nausea, pain scores, and the need for rescue analgesics in the PACU without increasing hemodynamic instability in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery.