Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Background: Sterility and safety assurance of hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) products is critical in transplantation. Microbial contamination can lead to product disposal and increases the risk of unsuccessful clinical outcomes. Therefore, it is important to implement and maintain good practice guidelines and regulations for the HSC collection and processing unit in each hospital. We aimed to share our experiences and suggest strategies to improve the quality assurance of HSC processing. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed microbial culture results of 11,743 HSC products processed over a 25-year period (January 1996 to May 2021). Because of reorganization of the HSC management system in 2008, the 25-year period was divided into periods 1 (January 1996 to December 2007) and 2 (January 2008 to May 2021). We reviewed all culture results of the HSC products and stored aliquot samples and collected culture results for peripheral blood and catheter samples. Results: Of the 11,743 products in total, 35 (0.3%) were contaminated by microorganisms, including 19 (0.5%) of 3,861 products during period 1 and 16 (0.2%) of 7,882 products during period 2. Penicillium was the most commonly identified microorganism (15.8%) during period 1 and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was the most commonly identified (31.3%) during period 2. HSC product contamination occurred most often during HSC collection and processing. Conclusions The contamination rate decreased significantly during period 2, when the HSC management system was reorganized. Our results imply that handling HSC products by trained personnel and adopting established protocols, including quality assurance programs, aid in decreasing the contamination risk.

Peripheral neuropathy is very common in patients with chronic renal failure. The pain arising from hemodialysis can be caused by vascular problems (such as vascular stenosis and steal syndrome) and neuropathy. Hemodialysis patients who need to be dialyzed three times a week should not be told to endure worsening pain every time they are dialyzed. We report that the pain arising from hemodialysis in the lower arm was a concern due to the nerve entrapment in the axillary area, and it was successfully controlled with ultrasound-guided nerve hydrodissection.

Background: Errors in counting spinal segments are common during interventional procedures when there are transitional vertebrae. In this study, we investigated the prevalence of the transitional vertebrae including thoracolumbar transitional vertebra (TLTV) and lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV). The relationship between the existence of TLTV and abnormal rib count or the existence of LSTV were also evaluated. Methods: The vertebral levels were counted craniocaudally, starting from C1, based on the assumption of 7 cervical, 12 thoracic, and 5 lumbar vertebrae, using whole spine spiral three-dimensional computed tomographic images. The 20th and 25th vertebrae were defined as L1 and S1, respectively. Results: In total, 150 patients had TLTV, with a prevalence of 11.2% (150/1,340). LSTV was observed in 111 of 1,340 cases (8.3%). Sacralization was observed in 68 of 1,340 cases (5.1%) and lumbarization in 43 of 1,340 cases (3.2%). There was a significant relationship between the existence of TLTV and the abnormal rib count (odds ratio [OR]: 117.26, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 60.77–226.27; P < 0.001) and LSTV (OR: 7.38, 95% CI: 3.99–13.63; P < 0.001). Conclusions Our study results suggest that patients with TLTV are more likely to have an abnormal rib count or LSTV. If a TLTV or LSTV is seen on the fluoroscopic image, a whole spine image is necessary to permit accurate numbering of the lumbar vertebra.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Limited data are available regarding the efficacy of rivaroxaban for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban for the treatment of VTE in active cancer patients. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, open-label trial (NCT01989845), we enrolled patients with active cancer and objectively diagnosed lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism (PE), or both from November 2013 to June 2016. Active cancer was defined as a histologically confirmed malignancy, which was diagnosed or treated within the previous 6 months, or as a recurrent/metastatic cancer. Patients received oral rivaroxaban 15 mg twice daily for first 3 weeks, followed by 20 mg once daily for 6 months. The primary outcome was the symptomatic recurrent VTE and the secondary outcomes included any recurrent VTE, major or clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding events, and overall mortality. All study outcomes were validated by blinded central adjudication. RESULTS: Of 124 patients enrolled, 110 (88.7%) had solid cancer, 93 (75.0%) had metastatic disease, and 110 (88.7%) were receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy. During the 6-month study period, seven patients experienced symptomatic recurrent VTE (cumulative incidence, 5.9%), and two patients experienced incidental recurrent PE (cumulative incidence of any recurrent VTE, 7.6%). Major bleeding events occurred in six patients (cumulative incidence, 5.3%) and CRNM bleeding events in 11 patients (cumulative incidence, 10.2%). Twenty-eight patients (overall mortality, 24.0%) died. CONCLUSIONS Rivaroxaban is effective and safe for the treatment of VTE in patients with active cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The effect of cognitive intervention in patients with dementia is inconsistent. This study sought to find out the effect of cognitive intervention by measuring interval change between before and after intervention. METHODS: We evaluated cognitive changes according to clinical diagnostic group across Gangwon province for 940 patients with dementia diagnosed at hospital clinics and 2,975 subjects without dementia. All subjects were treated with cognitive intervention. They underwent a cognitive and mood assessment before and after intervention. We used interval change of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores as a primary measure of interventional outcome. RESULTS: Changes in mean MMSE score were significantly different between the non-dementia group and the dementia group (p=0.016), with changes of 0.7±2.4 and 1.0±3.7 points (±standard deviation), respectively. Cognitive improvement regarding completion of session was significantly higher in the dementia group (p=0.001), with changes of 0.41±4.51 for uncompleted group and 1.30±3.22 points for completed ones. Lower initial MMSE scores, lower age, and type of intervention were found to be independent predictive factors of subsequent cognitive changes as indicated by mean MMSE scores. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that cognitive intervention might be useful for patients with dementia. Their response to treatment might be related to the type of intervention.
Cognitive Therapy ; Dementia* ; Gangwon-do ; Humans