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.

Objective: To examine the usefulness and feasibility of modified thread carpal tunnel release (TCTR) by comparing the results of using pre-existing commercial thread with those of a newly developed thread (Smartwire-01). Methods: A total of 17 cadaveric wrists were used in the study. The modified TCTR method was practiced by two different experts. Pre-existing commercial surgical dissecting thread (Loop&ShearTM) was used for five wrists and the newly developed Smartwire-01 was used for twelve wrists. The gross and microanatomy of the specimens were evaluated by a blinded anatomist. Results: Both types of thread were able to cut the TCL similarly. Gross anatomy and histologic findings showed that there was no significant difference between the two types of threads. However, the practitioners felt that it was easier to cut the TCL using the newly-developed thread. Conclusion TCTR using Smartwire-01 was as effective as pre-existing Loop&ShearTM, with better user experiences.

Objective: : The percutaneous thread transection technique is a surgical dissecting method using a dissecting thread inserted through a needle under ultrasound guidance without skin incision. As the new dissecting threads were developed domestically, this cadaver study was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety between the new threads (ultra V sswire and smartwire-01) and a pre-existing commercial dissecting thread (loop & shear) by demonstrating a modified looped thread cubital tunnel release. Methods: : The percutaneous cubital tunnel release procedure was performed on 29 fresh cadaveric upper extremities. The preexisting commercial thread was used in 5 upper extremities. The two newly developed threads were used in 24 upper extremities. Two practitioners performed the procedures separately. After the modified looped thread cubital release, anatomical and histological analyses were performed by a blinded anatomist. The presence of the dissected cubital tunnel and damaged adjacent soft tissue was assessed. Results: : Out of the 29 cadaveric upper extremities, 27 specimens showed complete dissection of the Osborne ligament and the proximal fascia of the flexor carpi ulnaris muscle. One specimen was incompletely dissected in each of the ultra V sswire and smartwire-01 groups. There were no injuries of adjacent structures including the ulnar nerve, ulnar artery, medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve, or flexor tendon with either the commercial thread or the newly developed threads. The anatomical analysis revealed clear and sharp incisional margins of the cubital tunnel in the Smartwire-01 and loop & shear groups. All three kinds of threads maintained proper linear elasticity for easy handling during the procedure. The smartwire-01 provided higher visibility in ultrasound than the other threads. Conclusion : The newly developed threads were effective and safe for use in the thread cubital tunnel release procedure.

no abstract available.

Background: The coronavirus disease pandemic has directly impacted global health. In developing countries, health service problems are more serious because of the lack of healthcare infrastructure. In this situation, if medical needs could be predicted, it would be helpful to bridge the medical gap with the provision of appropriate medical support. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between climate change and skin diseases in developing countries to better prepare for medical missions. Methods: From 2012 to 2016, except for 2014, we visited a mission site located in Luzon, Philippines, every July.We retrospectively reviewed 499 patient data as well as weather information. Results: The total number of patients decreased each year. The climate change analysis using Pearson correlation showed that the temperature and ultraviolet index tended to increase every year (r2 =0.99, 0.93, respectively; p＜ 0.05). Conversely, humidity and rainfall decreased (r2 =−0.99, −0.96, respectively; p＜0.05). The Cochran–Armitage test showed that the rate of infectious skin disease diagnoses decreased every year compared to that of eczematous diseases. Conclusion The total number of patients decreased by approximately 50% during medical service. We believe that the improvement in living standards and hygiene through continuous medical support has influenced the change in the incidence of skin diseases. Climate change was also thought to have affected the rate of skin disease diagnoses; in fact, the rate of infectious disease diagnoses tended to decrease compared to that of eczematous diseases. This analysis would be helpful for preparing for medical support.

Background: The coronavirus disease pandemic has directly impacted global health. In developing countries, health service problems are more serious because of the lack of healthcare infrastructure. In this situation, if medical needs could be predicted, it would be helpful to bridge the medical gap with the provision of appropriate medical support. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between climate change and skin diseases in developing countries to better prepare for medical missions. Methods: From 2012 to 2016, except for 2014, we visited a mission site located in Luzon, Philippines, every July.We retrospectively reviewed 499 patient data as well as weather information. Results: The total number of patients decreased each year. The climate change analysis using Pearson correlation showed that the temperature and ultraviolet index tended to increase every year (r2 =0.99, 0.93, respectively; p＜ 0.05). Conversely, humidity and rainfall decreased (r2 =−0.99, −0.96, respectively; p＜0.05). The Cochran–Armitage test showed that the rate of infectious skin disease diagnoses decreased every year compared to that of eczematous diseases. Conclusion The total number of patients decreased by approximately 50% during medical service. We believe that the improvement in living standards and hygiene through continuous medical support has influenced the change in the incidence of skin diseases. Climate change was also thought to have affected the rate of skin disease diagnoses; in fact, the rate of infectious disease diagnoses tended to decrease compared to that of eczematous diseases. This analysis would be helpful for preparing for medical support.