The femoral artery is the preferred access route for neurointerventions. The transfemoral approach (TFA) offers advantages such as a large diameter and easy access. However, it also entails disadvantages such as patient discomfort and high risk of complications. Following the initial report of coronary angiography using the transradial approach (TRA) in 1989, cardiologists discovered the advantages of TRA over the TFA and gradually replaced it with the TRA. In 1997, Matsumoto et al. used the TRA for cerebral angiography and neurointervention. Thereafter, the adoption of TRA for neurointervention gradually increased and good outcomes were reported. However, despite these developments, the adoption rate of TRA is relatively low. We reviewed the relevant studies to increase the accessibility of TRA for neurointerventionists.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

The femoral artery is the preferred access route for neurointerventions. The transfemoral approach (TFA) offers advantages such as a large diameter and easy access. However, it also entails disadvantages such as patient discomfort and high risk of complications. Following the initial report of coronary angiography using the transradial approach (TRA) in 1989, cardiologists discovered the advantages of TRA over the TFA and gradually replaced it with the TRA. In 1997, Matsumoto et al. used the TRA for cerebral angiography and neurointervention. Thereafter, the adoption of TRA for neurointervention gradually increased and good outcomes were reported. However, despite these developments, the adoption rate of TRA is relatively low. We reviewed the relevant studies to increase the accessibility of TRA for neurointerventionists.

The femoral artery is the preferred access route for neurointerventions. The transfemoral approach (TFA) offers advantages such as a large diameter and easy access. However, it also entails disadvantages such as patient discomfort and high risk of complications. Following the initial report of coronary angiography using the transradial approach (TRA) in 1989, cardiologists discovered the advantages of TRA over the TFA and gradually replaced it with the TRA. In 1997, Matsumoto et al. used the TRA for cerebral angiography and neurointervention. Thereafter, the adoption of TRA for neurointervention gradually increased and good outcomes were reported. However, despite these developments, the adoption rate of TRA is relatively low. We reviewed the relevant studies to increase the accessibility of TRA for neurointerventionists.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

The femoral artery is the preferred access route for neurointerventions. The transfemoral approach (TFA) offers advantages such as a large diameter and easy access. However, it also entails disadvantages such as patient discomfort and high risk of complications. Following the initial report of coronary angiography using the transradial approach (TRA) in 1989, cardiologists discovered the advantages of TRA over the TFA and gradually replaced it with the TRA. In 1997, Matsumoto et al. used the TRA for cerebral angiography and neurointervention. Thereafter, the adoption of TRA for neurointervention gradually increased and good outcomes were reported. However, despite these developments, the adoption rate of TRA is relatively low. We reviewed the relevant studies to increase the accessibility of TRA for neurointerventionists.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Purpose: This study aimed to provide the basic data needed to estimate future urologist supply and demand by applying various statistical models related to healthcare utilization. Materials and Methods: Data from multiple sources, including the Yearbook of Health and Welfare Statistics, Korean Hospital Association, Korean Medical Association, and the Korean Urological Association, were used for supply estimation. Demand estimation incorporated data on both clinical and non-clinical urologists, along with future population estimates. In-and-out moves and demographic methods were employed for supply estimation, while the Bureau of Health Professions model was utilized for demand estimation. Supply estimation assumptions included fixed resident quotas, age-specific death rates, migration rates, and retirement age considerations. Demand estimation assumptions included combining clinical and nonclinical urologist demands, adjusting population size for age-related healthcare usage variations. Urologist productivity was determined by adjusting productivity levels to 100%, 90%, and 80% of the base year based on actual clinical practice volumes. Results: Estimations of both demand and supply consistently indicate an oversupply of urologists until 2025, followed by an expected shortage by 2035 owing to increased deaths and retirements attributed to the aging urologist population. This shortage becomes more pronounced when employing more reliable models, such as logit or ARIMA (autoregressive integrated moving average), underscoring the growing need for urologists in the future. Conclusions All estimation models estimated an oversupply of urologists until 2025, transitioning to a deficit due to reduced supply thereafter. However, considering potential unaccounted factors, greater effort is needed for accurate predictions and corresponding measures.

Background/Aims: Appropriate tissue tension and clear visibility of the dissection area using traction are essential for effective and safe endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). In this study, we developed a retractable robot-assisted traction device and evaluated its performance in colorectal ESD. Methods: An experienced endoscopist performed ESD 18 times on an ex vivo porcine colon using the robot and 18 times using the conventional method. The outcome measures were procedure time, dissection speed, procedure-related adverse events, and blind dissection rate. Results: Thirty-six colonic lesions were resected from ex vivo porcine colon samples. The total procedure time was significantly shorter in robot-assisted ESD (RESD) than in conventional ESD (CESD) (20.1±4.1 minutes vs 34.3±8.3 minutes, p<0.05). The submucosal dissection speed was significantly faster in the RESD group than in the CESD group (36.8±9.2 mm 2 /min vs 18.1±4.7 mm 2 /min, p<0.05). The blind dissection rate was also significantly lower in the RESD group (12.8%±3.4% vs 35.1%±3.9%, p<0.05). In an in vivo porcine feasibility study, the robotic device was attached to a colonoscope and successfully inserted into the proximal colon without damaging the colonic wall, and ESD was successfully performed. Conclusions The dissection speed and safety profile improved significantly with the retractable RESD. Thus, our robotic device has the potential to provide simple, effective, and safe multidirectional traction during colonic ESD.