Purpose: This study examined the status of arthroscopic shoulder surgery in ambulatory settings by analyzing a single institutional database. Materials and Methods: Three hundred and eight arthroscopic shoulder surgeries performed between June 2022 and March 2023 were reviewed retrospectively. Propensity score matching (1-to-2) was performed between the day surgery group and the inpatient group according to sex, age, tear size, and interscalene nerve block (ISNB). Finally, 59 patients in the day surgery group and 118 patients in the inpatient group were matched. The indications of the day surgery were pre-determined according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I or II, and the patient's social, medical, and surgical factors were thoroughly analyzed to define the target group of the day surgery. Complications related to voiding difficulty were prevented by classifying the patients using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) before surgery, and preventive medications were prescribed in the higher-risk patients with an IPSS of more than 7. To reduce postoperative pain, ISNB and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) were applied to all patients during the study period, while day surgery patients received an additional bolus injection (5 cc of 0.375% ropivacaine+5 cc of normal saline) before discharge instead of continuous ISNB PCA. This study compared the postoperative pain assessments at discharge and on postoperative days 1, 2, and 14, as well as the total volume of saline irrigation, surgical time, and complications between the day surgery and inpatient groups. Results: The visual analogue scale for pain (pVAS) at the time of surgery were comparable in the day surgery group (4.1±1.5) and inpatient surgery group (4.1±1.1), with no significant difference between them (p=0.35). Similarly, the postoperative pVAS at 1, 2, and 14 days postoperatively was similar in the two groups (all p>0.05). The surgical-related factors, such as the total volume of saline irrigation and surgical time, were similar in the two groups. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups (all p>0.05). Conclusion These results show that arthroscopic shoulder surgery in ambulatory settings is a safe alternative to inpatient surgery.

Purpose: This study examined the status of arthroscopic shoulder surgery in ambulatory settings by analyzing a single institutional database. Materials and Methods: Three hundred and eight arthroscopic shoulder surgeries performed between June 2022 and March 2023 were reviewed retrospectively. Propensity score matching (1-to-2) was performed between the day surgery group and the inpatient group according to sex, age, tear size, and interscalene nerve block (ISNB). Finally, 59 patients in the day surgery group and 118 patients in the inpatient group were matched. The indications of the day surgery were pre-determined according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I or II, and the patient's social, medical, and surgical factors were thoroughly analyzed to define the target group of the day surgery. Complications related to voiding difficulty were prevented by classifying the patients using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) before surgery, and preventive medications were prescribed in the higher-risk patients with an IPSS of more than 7. To reduce postoperative pain, ISNB and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) were applied to all patients during the study period, while day surgery patients received an additional bolus injection (5 cc of 0.375% ropivacaine+5 cc of normal saline) before discharge instead of continuous ISNB PCA. This study compared the postoperative pain assessments at discharge and on postoperative days 1, 2, and 14, as well as the total volume of saline irrigation, surgical time, and complications between the day surgery and inpatient groups. Results: The visual analogue scale for pain (pVAS) at the time of surgery were comparable in the day surgery group (4.1±1.5) and inpatient surgery group (4.1±1.1), with no significant difference between them (p=0.35). Similarly, the postoperative pVAS at 1, 2, and 14 days postoperatively was similar in the two groups (all p>0.05). The surgical-related factors, such as the total volume of saline irrigation and surgical time, were similar in the two groups. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups (all p>0.05). Conclusion These results show that arthroscopic shoulder surgery in ambulatory settings is a safe alternative to inpatient surgery.

Purpose: This study examined the status of arthroscopic shoulder surgery in ambulatory settings by analyzing a single institutional database. Materials and Methods: Three hundred and eight arthroscopic shoulder surgeries performed between June 2022 and March 2023 were reviewed retrospectively. Propensity score matching (1-to-2) was performed between the day surgery group and the inpatient group according to sex, age, tear size, and interscalene nerve block (ISNB). Finally, 59 patients in the day surgery group and 118 patients in the inpatient group were matched. The indications of the day surgery were pre-determined according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I or II, and the patient's social, medical, and surgical factors were thoroughly analyzed to define the target group of the day surgery. Complications related to voiding difficulty were prevented by classifying the patients using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) before surgery, and preventive medications were prescribed in the higher-risk patients with an IPSS of more than 7. To reduce postoperative pain, ISNB and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) were applied to all patients during the study period, while day surgery patients received an additional bolus injection (5 cc of 0.375% ropivacaine+5 cc of normal saline) before discharge instead of continuous ISNB PCA. This study compared the postoperative pain assessments at discharge and on postoperative days 1, 2, and 14, as well as the total volume of saline irrigation, surgical time, and complications between the day surgery and inpatient groups. Results: The visual analogue scale for pain (pVAS) at the time of surgery were comparable in the day surgery group (4.1±1.5) and inpatient surgery group (4.1±1.1), with no significant difference between them (p=0.35). Similarly, the postoperative pVAS at 1, 2, and 14 days postoperatively was similar in the two groups (all p>0.05). The surgical-related factors, such as the total volume of saline irrigation and surgical time, were similar in the two groups. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups (all p>0.05). Conclusion These results show that arthroscopic shoulder surgery in ambulatory settings is a safe alternative to inpatient surgery.

Purpose: The use of two adjacent radiation beams to treat a lesion that is larger than the maximum field of a machine may lead to higher or lower dose distribution at the junction than expected. Therefore, evaluation of the junction dose is crucial for radiotherapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can effectively protect surrounding normal tissues by implementing a complex dose distribution; therefore, two adjacent VMAT fields can effectively treat large lesions. However, VMAT can lead to significant errors in the junction dose between fields if setup errors occur due to its highly complex dose distributions. Methods: In this study, setup errors of ±1, ±3, and ±5 mm were assumed during radiotherapy for treating large lesions in the lower abdomen, and their effects on the treatment dose distribution and target coverage were analyzed using gamma pass rate (GP) and homogeneity index (HI). All studies were performed using a computational simulation method based on our radiation treatment planning software. Results: Consequently, when the setup error was more than ±3 mm, most GP values using a 3%/3-mm criterion decreased by <90%. GP was independent of the direction of the field gap (FG), whereas HI values were relatively more affected by negative values for FG. Conclusions Therefore, the size and direction of setup errors should be carefully managed when performing dual-isocentric VMATs for large targets.

Purpose: The use of two adjacent radiation beams to treat a lesion that is larger than the maximum field of a machine may lead to higher or lower dose distribution at the junction than expected. Therefore, evaluation of the junction dose is crucial for radiotherapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can effectively protect surrounding normal tissues by implementing a complex dose distribution; therefore, two adjacent VMAT fields can effectively treat large lesions. However, VMAT can lead to significant errors in the junction dose between fields if setup errors occur due to its highly complex dose distributions. Methods: In this study, setup errors of ±1, ±3, and ±5 mm were assumed during radiotherapy for treating large lesions in the lower abdomen, and their effects on the treatment dose distribution and target coverage were analyzed using gamma pass rate (GP) and homogeneity index (HI). All studies were performed using a computational simulation method based on our radiation treatment planning software. Results: Consequently, when the setup error was more than ±3 mm, most GP values using a 3%/3-mm criterion decreased by <90%. GP was independent of the direction of the field gap (FG), whereas HI values were relatively more affected by negative values for FG. Conclusions Therefore, the size and direction of setup errors should be carefully managed when performing dual-isocentric VMATs for large targets.

Purpose: The use of two adjacent radiation beams to treat a lesion that is larger than the maximum field of a machine may lead to higher or lower dose distribution at the junction than expected. Therefore, evaluation of the junction dose is crucial for radiotherapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can effectively protect surrounding normal tissues by implementing a complex dose distribution; therefore, two adjacent VMAT fields can effectively treat large lesions. However, VMAT can lead to significant errors in the junction dose between fields if setup errors occur due to its highly complex dose distributions. Methods: In this study, setup errors of ±1, ±3, and ±5 mm were assumed during radiotherapy for treating large lesions in the lower abdomen, and their effects on the treatment dose distribution and target coverage were analyzed using gamma pass rate (GP) and homogeneity index (HI). All studies were performed using a computational simulation method based on our radiation treatment planning software. Results: Consequently, when the setup error was more than ±3 mm, most GP values using a 3%/3-mm criterion decreased by <90%. GP was independent of the direction of the field gap (FG), whereas HI values were relatively more affected by negative values for FG. Conclusions Therefore, the size and direction of setup errors should be carefully managed when performing dual-isocentric VMATs for large targets.

Purpose: The use of two adjacent radiation beams to treat a lesion that is larger than the maximum field of a machine may lead to higher or lower dose distribution at the junction than expected. Therefore, evaluation of the junction dose is crucial for radiotherapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can effectively protect surrounding normal tissues by implementing a complex dose distribution; therefore, two adjacent VMAT fields can effectively treat large lesions. However, VMAT can lead to significant errors in the junction dose between fields if setup errors occur due to its highly complex dose distributions. Methods: In this study, setup errors of ±1, ±3, and ±5 mm were assumed during radiotherapy for treating large lesions in the lower abdomen, and their effects on the treatment dose distribution and target coverage were analyzed using gamma pass rate (GP) and homogeneity index (HI). All studies were performed using a computational simulation method based on our radiation treatment planning software. Results: Consequently, when the setup error was more than ±3 mm, most GP values using a 3%/3-mm criterion decreased by <90%. GP was independent of the direction of the field gap (FG), whereas HI values were relatively more affected by negative values for FG. Conclusions Therefore, the size and direction of setup errors should be carefully managed when performing dual-isocentric VMATs for large targets.

Purpose: The use of two adjacent radiation beams to treat a lesion that is larger than the maximum field of a machine may lead to higher or lower dose distribution at the junction than expected. Therefore, evaluation of the junction dose is crucial for radiotherapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can effectively protect surrounding normal tissues by implementing a complex dose distribution; therefore, two adjacent VMAT fields can effectively treat large lesions. However, VMAT can lead to significant errors in the junction dose between fields if setup errors occur due to its highly complex dose distributions. Methods: In this study, setup errors of ±1, ±3, and ±5 mm were assumed during radiotherapy for treating large lesions in the lower abdomen, and their effects on the treatment dose distribution and target coverage were analyzed using gamma pass rate (GP) and homogeneity index (HI). All studies were performed using a computational simulation method based on our radiation treatment planning software. Results: Consequently, when the setup error was more than ±3 mm, most GP values using a 3%/3-mm criterion decreased by <90%. GP was independent of the direction of the field gap (FG), whereas HI values were relatively more affected by negative values for FG. Conclusions Therefore, the size and direction of setup errors should be carefully managed when performing dual-isocentric VMATs for large targets.

Background: Spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension (SAH) frequently occurs in older patients, many of whom have mild left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction, often asymptomatic at rest. This study investigated the association between preoperative echocardiographic measurements and SAH in older patients with mild LV diastolic dysfunction. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study using data from electronic medical records. The patients ≥ 65 years old who underwent spinal anesthesia for urologic surgery between January 2016 and December 2017 and whose preoperative echocardiography within 6 months before surgery revealed grade I LV diastolic dysfunction were recruited. SAH was investigated using the anesthesia records. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed. Results: A total of 163 patients were analyzed. SAH and significant SAH developed in 55 (33.7%) patients. The mitral inflow E velocity was an independent risk factor for SAH (odds ratio [OR], 0.886; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.845–0.929; P < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve for mitral inflow E velocity to predict SAH was 0.819 (95% CI, 0.752–0.875; P < 0.001). If mitral inflow E velocity was ≤ 60 cm/s, SAH was predicted with a sensitivity of 83.6% and specificity of 70.4%. Conclusions The preoperative mitral inflow E velocity demonstrated the greatest predictability of SAH in older patients with mild LV diastolic dysfunction. This may assist in identifying patients at high risk of SAH and guiding preventive strategies in the future.

Purpose: Recently, we developed allele-discriminating priming system (ADPS) technology. This method increases the sensitivity of conventional quantitative polymerase chain reaction up to 100 folds, with limit of detection, 0.01%, with reinforced specificity. This prospective study aimed to develop and validate the accuracy of ADPS epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) Mutation Test Kit using clinical specimens. Materials and Methods: In total 189 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissues resected from patients with non–small cell lung cancer were used to perform a comparative evaluation of the ADPS EGFR Mutation Test Kit versus the cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2, which is the current gold standard. When the two methods had inconsistent results, next-generation sequencing–based CancerSCAN was utilized as a referee. Results: The overall agreement of the two methods was 97.4% (93.9%-99.1%); the positive percent agreement, 95.0% (88.7%-98.4%); and the negative percent agreement, 100.0% (95.9%-100.0%). EGFR mutations were detected at a frequency of 50.3% using the ADPS EGFR Mutation Test Kit and 52.9% using the cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2. There were 10 discrepant mutation calls between the two methods. CancerSCAN reproduced eight ADPS results. In two cases, mutant allele fraction was ultra-low at 0.02% and 0.06%, which are significantly below the limit of detection of the cobas assay and CancerSCAN. Based on the EGFR genotyping by ADPS, the treatment options could be switched in five patients. Conclusion The highly sensitive and specific ADPS EGFR Mutation Test Kit would be useful in detecting the patients who have lung cancer with EGFR mutation, and can benefit from the EGFR targeted therapy.