Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: To evaluate the relationship between distal fusion level in correction and fusion surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and radiologic changes in the sacroiliac (SI) joint. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients who underwent correction and fusion for AIS between 2005 and 2017 with at least 5 years of follow-up. We categorized patients into two groups: Group 1 (distal fusion above L2, 74 patients) and Group 2 (distal fusion at L3 and below, 52 patients). Radiologic parameters and SI joint changes were evaluated on plain radiographs obtained from preoperative to 5 years postoperatively. We also investigated other risk factors for SI joint change. Results: Analysis of demographic factors revealed no significant difference between the two groups. There was a significant difference in the incidence of SI joint change between Group 1 (5 patients, 6.75%) and Group 2 (18 patients, 34.61%), with Group 2 showing a faster increase in incidence according to the Kaplan-Meier method (p<0.0001). Preoperative lumbar lordosis (LL) and ΔLL had a significant relationship with SI joint changes [preoperative LL, hazard ratio (HR)=0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.64– 0.93, p=0.008; ΔLL, HR=0.79, 95% CI=0.67–0.95, p=0.01). Conclusion After AIS surgery, patients who had fusion to the lower lumbar vertebrae (L3 or L4) experienced a higher incidence and faster progression of degenerative changes in the SI joint. Low preoperative LL and inadequate correction of LL during the operation were also risk factors for SI joint degeneration.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

Purpose: This study aimed to characterize the clinical patterns and severity of brain injury in neonates who survived extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy for acute respiratory failure during the neonatal period, to evaluate their short-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, and to identify the factors associated with these outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of neonates who survived ECMO between 2018 and 2024. Based on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, the patients were classified into two groups: no/mild and moderate/severe brain injury. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were assessed at 12–40 months of age using the Bayley Scale of Infant Development II/III and/or the Korean Developmental Screening Test. Results: Among the 19 neonates included in the study, 18 (94.7%) showed varying degrees of brain injury on MRI (mild: 12, moderate: 1, severe: 5). Neonates with moderate/severe brain injury had significantly longer durations of ECMO support and extended durations of mechanical ventilation and were more likely to receive continuous renal replacement therapy than those with no or mild injury. Developmental delay was identified in 36.8% of survivors and was significantly associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, longer neonatal intensive care unit stays, and a higher incidence of seizures. Conclusion Brain injury is frequently observed on MRI in neonates treated with ECMO. However, its direct association with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes is not definitive. Since MRI findings alone cannot predict developmental outcomes, clinical and environmental factors should be integrated into prognostic assessments.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

Purpose: This study aimed to characterize the clinical patterns and severity of brain injury in neonates who survived extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy for acute respiratory failure during the neonatal period, to evaluate their short-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, and to identify the factors associated with these outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of neonates who survived ECMO between 2018 and 2024. Based on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, the patients were classified into two groups: no/mild and moderate/severe brain injury. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were assessed at 12–40 months of age using the Bayley Scale of Infant Development II/III and/or the Korean Developmental Screening Test. Results: Among the 19 neonates included in the study, 18 (94.7%) showed varying degrees of brain injury on MRI (mild: 12, moderate: 1, severe: 5). Neonates with moderate/severe brain injury had significantly longer durations of ECMO support and extended durations of mechanical ventilation and were more likely to receive continuous renal replacement therapy than those with no or mild injury. Developmental delay was identified in 36.8% of survivors and was significantly associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, longer neonatal intensive care unit stays, and a higher incidence of seizures. Conclusion Brain injury is frequently observed on MRI in neonates treated with ECMO. However, its direct association with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes is not definitive. Since MRI findings alone cannot predict developmental outcomes, clinical and environmental factors should be integrated into prognostic assessments.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: To evaluate the relationship between distal fusion level in correction and fusion surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and radiologic changes in the sacroiliac (SI) joint. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients who underwent correction and fusion for AIS between 2005 and 2017 with at least 5 years of follow-up. We categorized patients into two groups: Group 1 (distal fusion above L2, 74 patients) and Group 2 (distal fusion at L3 and below, 52 patients). Radiologic parameters and SI joint changes were evaluated on plain radiographs obtained from preoperative to 5 years postoperatively. We also investigated other risk factors for SI joint change. Results: Analysis of demographic factors revealed no significant difference between the two groups. There was a significant difference in the incidence of SI joint change between Group 1 (5 patients, 6.75%) and Group 2 (18 patients, 34.61%), with Group 2 showing a faster increase in incidence according to the Kaplan-Meier method (p<0.0001). Preoperative lumbar lordosis (LL) and ΔLL had a significant relationship with SI joint changes [preoperative LL, hazard ratio (HR)=0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.64– 0.93, p=0.008; ΔLL, HR=0.79, 95% CI=0.67–0.95, p=0.01). Conclusion After AIS surgery, patients who had fusion to the lower lumbar vertebrae (L3 or L4) experienced a higher incidence and faster progression of degenerative changes in the SI joint. Low preoperative LL and inadequate correction of LL during the operation were also risk factors for SI joint degeneration.

Background: To identify the optimal surgical technique for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), this study compared surgical outcomes and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in patients undergoing single-level ACDF using cage alone single-level fusion and plate fixation techniques. Methods: This single-center retrospective study (2003–2018) included patients who underwent single-level ACDF with either plate fixation (PLATE) or cage (CAGE) alone. The radiologic and clinical outcomes between the 2 surgical groups were compared over a 4-year follow-up period. Outcomes of interest included parameters related to range of motion, sagittal alignment, as well as fusion, subsidence, and ASD rates. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Dysphagia and hoarseness rates were estimated based on medical records. Results: Forty-seven patients were included (n=17 in CAGE group). In the CAGE group, 94.1% of the patients had Bridwell grade 1 or 2, compared to 83.3% in the PLATE group (p = 0.396). Subsidence occurred in 12.5% and 3.6% of the CAGE and PLATE cases, respectively (p = 0.543). Segmental kyphosis progressed in the CAGE group compared to the PLATE group at 12, 24, and 48 months (p < 0.001). Radiographic ASD was observed in 41.2% and 30.0% of patients in the CAGE and PLATE groups, respectively, with a higher incidence in the upper segments for both groups. Preoperative NDI scores were similar between the groups; however, postoperatively, the CAGE group had significantly lower NDI scores (3.50 ± 2.74 vs. 8.00 ± 5.81) at 4 years (p = 0.020). Neck pain VAS scores also showed significant improvement in the CAGE group (2.33 ± 2.94) compared with that in the PLATE group (3.07 ± 2.31) at 4 years (p = 0.045). Both groups showed comparable arm pain VAS scores at 2 and 4 years postoperatively. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in 1 patient in the PLATE group, resolving almost completely by 1 year. Conclusions Single-level ACDF using a cage alone technique demonstrated favorable radiologic and clinical outcomes overall compared to plate-augmented ACDF. However, plate augmentation is recommended for patients with severe cervical kyphosis or those at high risk of subsidence.