Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

Objective: We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF). Methods: Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan. Results: Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001). Conclusion Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.

Objective: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been performed for spinal tumors. However, the quantitative effect of SRS on postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors remains unknown. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of SRS for treating postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed cases of postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors from 1995 to 2020 in 2 tertiary institutions. Residual tumors underwent SRS (SRS group) or were observed with clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up (observation group). Tumor regrowth rates were compared between the SRS and observation groups. Additionally, risk factors for tumor regrowth were analyzed. Results: A total of 28 cervical dumbbell tumors were incompletely resected. Eight patients were in the SRS group, and 20 in the observation group. The mean regrowth rate was not significantly lower (p = 0.784) in the SRS group (0.18 ± 0.29 mm/mo) than in the observation group (0.33 ± 0.40 mm/mo). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, SRS was not a significant variable (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18–1.79; p = 0.336). Conclusion SRS did not significantly decrease the tumor regrowth rate in our study. We believe that achieving maximal resection during the initial operation is more important than postoperative adjuvant SRS.

Objective: We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF). Methods: Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan. Results: Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001). Conclusion Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.

Objective: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been performed for spinal tumors. However, the quantitative effect of SRS on postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors remains unknown. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of SRS for treating postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed cases of postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors from 1995 to 2020 in 2 tertiary institutions. Residual tumors underwent SRS (SRS group) or were observed with clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up (observation group). Tumor regrowth rates were compared between the SRS and observation groups. Additionally, risk factors for tumor regrowth were analyzed. Results: A total of 28 cervical dumbbell tumors were incompletely resected. Eight patients were in the SRS group, and 20 in the observation group. The mean regrowth rate was not significantly lower (p = 0.784) in the SRS group (0.18 ± 0.29 mm/mo) than in the observation group (0.33 ± 0.40 mm/mo). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, SRS was not a significant variable (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18–1.79; p = 0.336). Conclusion SRS did not significantly decrease the tumor regrowth rate in our study. We believe that achieving maximal resection during the initial operation is more important than postoperative adjuvant SRS.

Objective: We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF). Methods: Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan. Results: Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001). Conclusion Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.

Objective: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been performed for spinal tumors. However, the quantitative effect of SRS on postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors remains unknown. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of SRS for treating postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed cases of postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors from 1995 to 2020 in 2 tertiary institutions. Residual tumors underwent SRS (SRS group) or were observed with clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up (observation group). Tumor regrowth rates were compared between the SRS and observation groups. Additionally, risk factors for tumor regrowth were analyzed. Results: A total of 28 cervical dumbbell tumors were incompletely resected. Eight patients were in the SRS group, and 20 in the observation group. The mean regrowth rate was not significantly lower (p = 0.784) in the SRS group (0.18 ± 0.29 mm/mo) than in the observation group (0.33 ± 0.40 mm/mo). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, SRS was not a significant variable (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18–1.79; p = 0.336). Conclusion SRS did not significantly decrease the tumor regrowth rate in our study. We believe that achieving maximal resection during the initial operation is more important than postoperative adjuvant SRS.