1.Clinical Impact of Meniscal Scaffold Implantation in Patients with Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review
Joo Hyung HAN ; Min JUNG ; Kwangho CHUNG ; Se-Han JUNG ; Hyunjun LEE ; Chong-Hyuk CHOI ; Sung-Hwan KIM
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(1):112-122
Background:
Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds.
Methods:
A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included.
Results:
A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4.
Conclusions
There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.
2.Clinical Impact of Meniscal Scaffold Implantation in Patients with Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review
Joo Hyung HAN ; Min JUNG ; Kwangho CHUNG ; Se-Han JUNG ; Hyunjun LEE ; Chong-Hyuk CHOI ; Sung-Hwan KIM
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(1):112-122
Background:
Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds.
Methods:
A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included.
Results:
A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4.
Conclusions
There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.
3.Clinical Impact of Meniscal Scaffold Implantation in Patients with Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review
Joo Hyung HAN ; Min JUNG ; Kwangho CHUNG ; Se-Han JUNG ; Hyunjun LEE ; Chong-Hyuk CHOI ; Sung-Hwan KIM
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(1):112-122
Background:
Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds.
Methods:
A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included.
Results:
A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4.
Conclusions
There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.
4.Clinical Impact of Meniscal Scaffold Implantation in Patients with Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review
Joo Hyung HAN ; Min JUNG ; Kwangho CHUNG ; Se-Han JUNG ; Hyunjun LEE ; Chong-Hyuk CHOI ; Sung-Hwan KIM
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(1):112-122
Background:
Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds.
Methods:
A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included.
Results:
A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4.
Conclusions
There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.
6.Characteristics of High-Risk Groups for Suicide in Korea Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: K-COMPASS Cohort Study
Jeong Hun YANG ; Dae Hun KANG ; C. Hyung Keun PARK ; Min Ji KIM ; Sang Jin RHEE ; Min-Hyuk KIM ; Jinhee LEE ; Sang Yeol LEE ; Won Sub KANG ; Seong-Jin CHO ; Shin Gyeom KIM ; Se-Hoon SHIM ; Jung-Joon MOON ; Jieun YOO ; Weon-Young LEE ; Yong Min AHN
Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association 2024;63(4):246-259
Objectives:
This study examined the changes in the characteristics of high-risk suicide groups in South Korea before and after the COVID-19 pandemic using the Korean Cohort for the Model Predicting a Suicide and Suicide-related Behavior (K-COMPASS) cohort.
Methods:
The K-COMPASS is a longitudinal cohort study that started in 2015. The participants included suicide attempters and individuals with suicidal ideation from various hospitals and mental health centers in South Korea. This study compared the sociodemographic and psychiatric characteristics of 800 participants from the first cohort (2015–2019) with 511 participants from the second and third cohorts (2019–2024). Data were collected through structured interviews and validated scales.
Results:
The second and third cohort participants were younger, had a higher proportion of females, and exhibited more severe psychiatric symptoms and higher suicidal risk than the first cohort. The prevalence of physical illnesses decreased, while the use of psychiatric medications and the severity of mental health issues increased. In addition, significant sociodemographic changes were observed, such as higher educational levels and urban residency.
Conclusion
Significant shifts in the characteristics of high-risk suicide groups were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the need for targeted mental health interventions focusing on younger individuals and females to prevent suicide in high-risk groups.
7.Characteristics of High-Risk Groups for Suicide in Korea Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: K-COMPASS Cohort Study
Jeong Hun YANG ; Dae Hun KANG ; C. Hyung Keun PARK ; Min Ji KIM ; Sang Jin RHEE ; Min-Hyuk KIM ; Jinhee LEE ; Sang Yeol LEE ; Won Sub KANG ; Seong-Jin CHO ; Shin Gyeom KIM ; Se-Hoon SHIM ; Jung-Joon MOON ; Jieun YOO ; Weon-Young LEE ; Yong Min AHN
Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association 2024;63(4):246-259
Objectives:
This study examined the changes in the characteristics of high-risk suicide groups in South Korea before and after the COVID-19 pandemic using the Korean Cohort for the Model Predicting a Suicide and Suicide-related Behavior (K-COMPASS) cohort.
Methods:
The K-COMPASS is a longitudinal cohort study that started in 2015. The participants included suicide attempters and individuals with suicidal ideation from various hospitals and mental health centers in South Korea. This study compared the sociodemographic and psychiatric characteristics of 800 participants from the first cohort (2015–2019) with 511 participants from the second and third cohorts (2019–2024). Data were collected through structured interviews and validated scales.
Results:
The second and third cohort participants were younger, had a higher proportion of females, and exhibited more severe psychiatric symptoms and higher suicidal risk than the first cohort. The prevalence of physical illnesses decreased, while the use of psychiatric medications and the severity of mental health issues increased. In addition, significant sociodemographic changes were observed, such as higher educational levels and urban residency.
Conclusion
Significant shifts in the characteristics of high-risk suicide groups were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the need for targeted mental health interventions focusing on younger individuals and females to prevent suicide in high-risk groups.
8.Correction: 2023 Korean Society of Echocardiography position paper for diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, part I: aortic valve disease
Sun Hwa LEE ; Se Jung YOON ; Byung Joo SUN ; Hyue Mee KIM ; Hyung Yoon KIM ; Sahmin LEE ; Chi Young SHIM ; Eun Kyoung KIM ; Dong Hyuk CHO ; Jun Bean PARK ; Jeong Sook SEO ; Jung Woo SON ; In Cheol KIM ; Sang Hyun LEE ; Ran HEO ; Hyun Jung LEE ; Jae Hyeong PARK ; Jong Min SONG ; Sang Chol LEE ; Hyungseop KIM ; Duk Hyun KANG ; Jong Won HA ; Kye Hun KIM ;
Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 2024;32(1):34-
9.Comparative analysis of recurrence rates between intravesical gemcitabine and bacillus Calmette–Guérin induction therapy following transurethral resection of bladder tumors in patients with intermediate- and high-risk bladder cancer: A retrospective multicenter study
Joongwon CHOI ; Kyung Hwan KIM ; Hyung Suk KIM ; Hyun Sik YOON ; Jung Hoon KIM ; Jin Wook KIM ; Yong Seong LEE ; Se Young CHOI ; In Ho CHANG ; Young Hwii KO ; Wan SONG ; Byong Chang JEONG ; Jong Kil NAM
Investigative and Clinical Urology 2024;65(3):248-255
Purpose:
This study investigated the efficacy of intravesical gemcitabine as an alternative to bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) therapy.
Materials and Methods:
Data were retrospectively collected across seven institutions from February 1999 to May 2023. Inclusion criteria included patients with intermediate- or high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) who underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumors (TURBT) and received at least four sessions of intravesical gemcitabine or BCG induction therapy. Patient characteristics, complete remission (CR), occurrence, and progression rates were compared.
Results:
In total, 149 patients were included in this study (gemcitabine, 63; BCG, 86). No differences were apparent between the two groups in baseline characteristics, except for the follow-up period (gemcitabine, 9.2±5.9 months vs. BCG, 43.9±41.4 months, p<0.001). There were no consistent significant differences observed between the two groups in the 3-month (gemcitabine, 98.4% vs. BCG, 95.3%; p=0.848), 6-month (94.9% vs. 90.0%, respectively; p=0.793) and 1-year CR rates (84.2% vs. 83.3%, respectively;p=0.950). Also, there was no significant statistical difference in progression-free survival between the two groups (p=0.953). The occurrence rates of adverse events were similar between the groups (22.2% vs. 22.1%; p=0.989); however, the rate of Clavien– Dindo grade 2 or higher was significantly higher in the BCG group (1.6% vs. 16.3%, respectively; p<0.001).
Conclusions
Intravesical gemcitabine demonstrated efficacy comparable to BCG therapy for the first year in patients with intermediate- and high-risk NMIBC. However, long-term follow-up studies are warranted.
10.Correction: 2023 Korean Society of Echocardiography position paper for diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, part I: aortic valve disease
Sun Hwa LEE ; Se Jung YOON ; Byung Joo SUN ; Hyue Mee KIM ; Hyung Yoon KIM ; Sahmin LEE ; Chi Young SHIM ; Eun Kyoung KIM ; Dong Hyuk CHO ; Jun Bean PARK ; Jeong Sook SEO ; Jung Woo SON ; In Cheol KIM ; Sang Hyun LEE ; Ran HEO ; Hyun Jung LEE ; Jae Hyeong PARK ; Jong Min SONG ; Sang Chol LEE ; Hyungseop KIM ; Duk Hyun KANG ; Jong Won HA ; Kye Hun KIM ;
Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 2024;32(1):34-

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail