Peyronie’s disease is an acquired condition characterized by penile deformities caused by fibrosis of the penile tunica albuginea, leading to symptoms such as penile pain, erectile dysfunction, and other associated issues. Despite extensive research, the pathophysiology of this condition remains poorly understood, and standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols are lacking. While clinical guidelines from several professional societies exist, they do not consistently account for factors such as patient ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status. Thus, the Korean Society for Sexual Medicine and Andrology (KSSMA) aimed to develop recommendations tailored to clinical practice in Korea. These recommendations summarize the latest evidence, including clinical practice guidelines from various international professional societies, and represent the consensus opinion of an expert group within the KSSMA. They encompass all aspects of Peyronie’s disease, including the definition, diagnosis, non-surgical interventions, and surgical treatment options.

Peyronie’s disease is an acquired condition characterized by penile deformities caused by fibrosis of the penile tunica albuginea, leading to symptoms such as penile pain, erectile dysfunction, and other associated issues. Despite extensive research, the pathophysiology of this condition remains poorly understood, and standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols are lacking. While clinical guidelines from several professional societies exist, they do not consistently account for factors such as patient ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status. Thus, the Korean Society for Sexual Medicine and Andrology (KSSMA) aimed to develop recommendations tailored to clinical practice in Korea. These recommendations summarize the latest evidence, including clinical practice guidelines from various international professional societies, and represent the consensus opinion of an expert group within the KSSMA. They encompass all aspects of Peyronie’s disease, including the definition, diagnosis, non-surgical interventions, and surgical treatment options.

Peyronie’s disease is an acquired condition characterized by penile deformities caused by fibrosis of the penile tunica albuginea, leading to symptoms such as penile pain, erectile dysfunction, and other associated issues. Despite extensive research, the pathophysiology of this condition remains poorly understood, and standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols are lacking. While clinical guidelines from several professional societies exist, they do not consistently account for factors such as patient ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status. Thus, the Korean Society for Sexual Medicine and Andrology (KSSMA) aimed to develop recommendations tailored to clinical practice in Korea. These recommendations summarize the latest evidence, including clinical practice guidelines from various international professional societies, and represent the consensus opinion of an expert group within the KSSMA. They encompass all aspects of Peyronie’s disease, including the definition, diagnosis, non-surgical interventions, and surgical treatment options.

Peyronie’s disease is an acquired condition characterized by penile deformities caused by fibrosis of the penile tunica albuginea, leading to symptoms such as penile pain, erectile dysfunction, and other associated issues. Despite extensive research, the pathophysiology of this condition remains poorly understood, and standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols are lacking. While clinical guidelines from several professional societies exist, they do not consistently account for factors such as patient ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status. Thus, the Korean Society for Sexual Medicine and Andrology (KSSMA) aimed to develop recommendations tailored to clinical practice in Korea. These recommendations summarize the latest evidence, including clinical practice guidelines from various international professional societies, and represent the consensus opinion of an expert group within the KSSMA. They encompass all aspects of Peyronie’s disease, including the definition, diagnosis, non-surgical interventions, and surgical treatment options.

Peyronie’s disease is an acquired condition characterized by penile deformities caused by fibrosis of the penile tunica albuginea, leading to symptoms such as penile pain, erectile dysfunction, and other associated issues. Despite extensive research, the pathophysiology of this condition remains poorly understood, and standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols are lacking. While clinical guidelines from several professional societies exist, they do not consistently account for factors such as patient ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status. Thus, the Korean Society for Sexual Medicine and Andrology (KSSMA) aimed to develop recommendations tailored to clinical practice in Korea. These recommendations summarize the latest evidence, including clinical practice guidelines from various international professional societies, and represent the consensus opinion of an expert group within the KSSMA. They encompass all aspects of Peyronie’s disease, including the definition, diagnosis, non-surgical interventions, and surgical treatment options.

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 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 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 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 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.