Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerged infectious disease that needs further clinical investigation. Characterizing the temporal pattern of combined infections in patients with COVID-19 may help clinicians understand the clinical nature of this disease and provide valuable diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients isolated in four study hospitals in Korea for one year period from May 2021 to April 2022 when the delta and omicron variants were dominant. The temporal characteristics of combined infections based on specific diagnostic tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 16,967 COVID-19 patients were screened, 2,432 (14.3%) of whom underwent diagnostic microbiologic tests according to the clinical decision-making, 195 of whom had positive test results, and 0.55% (94/16,967) of whom were ultimately considered to have clinically meaningful combined infections. The median duration for the diagnosis of combined infections was 15 (interquartile range [IQR], 5–25) days after admission. The proportion of community-acquired coinfections (≤ 2 days after admission) was 11.7% (11/94), which included bacteremia (10/94, 10.63%) and tuberculosis (1/94, 1.06%). Combined infections after 2 days of admission were diagnosed at median 16 (IQR, 9–26) days, and included bacteremia (72.3%), fungemia (19.3%), cytomegalovirus (CMV) diseases (8.4%), Pneumocystis jerovecii pneumonia (PJP, 8.4%) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA, 4.8%). Conclusion Among COVID-19 patients with risk factors for severe complications, 0.55% had laboratory-confirmed combined infections, which included community and nosocomial pathogens in addition to unusual pathogens such as CMV disease, PJP and IPA.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerged infectious disease that needs further clinical investigation. Characterizing the temporal pattern of combined infections in patients with COVID-19 may help clinicians understand the clinical nature of this disease and provide valuable diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients isolated in four study hospitals in Korea for one year period from May 2021 to April 2022 when the delta and omicron variants were dominant. The temporal characteristics of combined infections based on specific diagnostic tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 16,967 COVID-19 patients were screened, 2,432 (14.3%) of whom underwent diagnostic microbiologic tests according to the clinical decision-making, 195 of whom had positive test results, and 0.55% (94/16,967) of whom were ultimately considered to have clinically meaningful combined infections. The median duration for the diagnosis of combined infections was 15 (interquartile range [IQR], 5–25) days after admission. The proportion of community-acquired coinfections (≤ 2 days after admission) was 11.7% (11/94), which included bacteremia (10/94, 10.63%) and tuberculosis (1/94, 1.06%). Combined infections after 2 days of admission were diagnosed at median 16 (IQR, 9–26) days, and included bacteremia (72.3%), fungemia (19.3%), cytomegalovirus (CMV) diseases (8.4%), Pneumocystis jerovecii pneumonia (PJP, 8.4%) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA, 4.8%). Conclusion Among COVID-19 patients with risk factors for severe complications, 0.55% had laboratory-confirmed combined infections, which included community and nosocomial pathogens in addition to unusual pathogens such as CMV disease, PJP and IPA.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerged infectious disease that needs further clinical investigation. Characterizing the temporal pattern of combined infections in patients with COVID-19 may help clinicians understand the clinical nature of this disease and provide valuable diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients isolated in four study hospitals in Korea for one year period from May 2021 to April 2022 when the delta and omicron variants were dominant. The temporal characteristics of combined infections based on specific diagnostic tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 16,967 COVID-19 patients were screened, 2,432 (14.3%) of whom underwent diagnostic microbiologic tests according to the clinical decision-making, 195 of whom had positive test results, and 0.55% (94/16,967) of whom were ultimately considered to have clinically meaningful combined infections. The median duration for the diagnosis of combined infections was 15 (interquartile range [IQR], 5–25) days after admission. The proportion of community-acquired coinfections (≤ 2 days after admission) was 11.7% (11/94), which included bacteremia (10/94, 10.63%) and tuberculosis (1/94, 1.06%). Combined infections after 2 days of admission were diagnosed at median 16 (IQR, 9–26) days, and included bacteremia (72.3%), fungemia (19.3%), cytomegalovirus (CMV) diseases (8.4%), Pneumocystis jerovecii pneumonia (PJP, 8.4%) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA, 4.8%). Conclusion Among COVID-19 patients with risk factors for severe complications, 0.55% had laboratory-confirmed combined infections, which included community and nosocomial pathogens in addition to unusual pathogens such as CMV disease, PJP and IPA.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerged infectious disease that needs further clinical investigation. Characterizing the temporal pattern of combined infections in patients with COVID-19 may help clinicians understand the clinical nature of this disease and provide valuable diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients isolated in four study hospitals in Korea for one year period from May 2021 to April 2022 when the delta and omicron variants were dominant. The temporal characteristics of combined infections based on specific diagnostic tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 16,967 COVID-19 patients were screened, 2,432 (14.3%) of whom underwent diagnostic microbiologic tests according to the clinical decision-making, 195 of whom had positive test results, and 0.55% (94/16,967) of whom were ultimately considered to have clinically meaningful combined infections. The median duration for the diagnosis of combined infections was 15 (interquartile range [IQR], 5–25) days after admission. The proportion of community-acquired coinfections (≤ 2 days after admission) was 11.7% (11/94), which included bacteremia (10/94, 10.63%) and tuberculosis (1/94, 1.06%). Combined infections after 2 days of admission were diagnosed at median 16 (IQR, 9–26) days, and included bacteremia (72.3%), fungemia (19.3%), cytomegalovirus (CMV) diseases (8.4%), Pneumocystis jerovecii pneumonia (PJP, 8.4%) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA, 4.8%). Conclusion Among COVID-19 patients with risk factors for severe complications, 0.55% had laboratory-confirmed combined infections, which included community and nosocomial pathogens in addition to unusual pathogens such as CMV disease, PJP and IPA.

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.

To restore masticatory function, dental implants require adequate bone support. For extensive maxillary bone loss, sinus lift surgery with bone grafting is often employed, favoring the autogenous iliac crest bone for better implant integration. Guides aid in the precise placement of implants and can reduce surgery time. In this context, an approach that combines of sinus lifting, bone grafting, and implant placement can be beneficial. In April 2020, a 58-year-old male presented with severe left maxillary alveolar bone atrophy and peri-implantitis of the right maxilla. Implants #15i, # 16i, and # 17i were removed, followed by bilateral sinus lift, bone grafting, and implant placement. During the 2-year follow-up after prosthesis placement, both the graft material and implants remained stable without complications. Iliac bone grafts exhibit greater resorption than other graft materials. In this case, implant positioning based on virtual planning and modifications guided by experience was performed without complications.

To restore masticatory function, dental implants require adequate bone support. For extensive maxillary bone loss, sinus lift surgery with bone grafting is often employed, favoring the autogenous iliac crest bone for better implant integration. Guides aid in the precise placement of implants and can reduce surgery time. In this context, an approach that combines of sinus lifting, bone grafting, and implant placement can be beneficial. In April 2020, a 58-year-old male presented with severe left maxillary alveolar bone atrophy and peri-implantitis of the right maxilla. Implants #15i, # 16i, and # 17i were removed, followed by bilateral sinus lift, bone grafting, and implant placement. During the 2-year follow-up after prosthesis placement, both the graft material and implants remained stable without complications. Iliac bone grafts exhibit greater resorption than other graft materials. In this case, implant positioning based on virtual planning and modifications guided by experience was performed without complications.

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.