Methods: The UBE approach targeted the ventral part of the superior articular process in the transforaminal UBE setup, specifically for upper lumbar disc herniation, with an approach angle of approximately 30º on the axial plane. Intraoperative navigation was employed to improve puncture accuracy for this relatively unfamiliar surgical technique. Navigation-assisted transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy was performed on four patients presenting with back or leg discomfort due to disc herniation at the L1–L2 or L2–L3 levels. Results: All patients experienced symptom relief and were discharged on postoperative day 2. Conclusions Transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy is a viable therapeutic option for upper lumbar paracentral disc herniation, which is typically associated with poor prognosis. Integrating navigation integration into this novel approach enhances precision and safety.

Methods: The UBE approach targeted the ventral part of the superior articular process in the transforaminal UBE setup, specifically for upper lumbar disc herniation, with an approach angle of approximately 30º on the axial plane. Intraoperative navigation was employed to improve puncture accuracy for this relatively unfamiliar surgical technique. Navigation-assisted transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy was performed on four patients presenting with back or leg discomfort due to disc herniation at the L1–L2 or L2–L3 levels. Results: All patients experienced symptom relief and were discharged on postoperative day 2. Conclusions Transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy is a viable therapeutic option for upper lumbar paracentral disc herniation, which is typically associated with poor prognosis. Integrating navigation integration into this novel approach enhances precision and safety.

Methods: The UBE approach targeted the ventral part of the superior articular process in the transforaminal UBE setup, specifically for upper lumbar disc herniation, with an approach angle of approximately 30º on the axial plane. Intraoperative navigation was employed to improve puncture accuracy for this relatively unfamiliar surgical technique. Navigation-assisted transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy was performed on four patients presenting with back or leg discomfort due to disc herniation at the L1–L2 or L2–L3 levels. Results: All patients experienced symptom relief and were discharged on postoperative day 2. Conclusions Transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy is a viable therapeutic option for upper lumbar paracentral disc herniation, which is typically associated with poor prognosis. Integrating navigation integration into this novel approach enhances precision and 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 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.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) is dominating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. The waning protective effect of available vaccines against the Omicron variant is a critical public health issue. This study aimed to assess the impact of the third COVID-19 vaccination on immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 strain in older individuals. Materials and Methods: Adults aged ≥60 years who had completed two doses of the homologous COVID-19 vaccine with either BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech, New York, NY, USA, BNT) or ChAdOx1 nCoV (SK bioscience, Andong-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea, ChAd) were registered to receive the third vaccination. Participants chose either BNT or mRNA-1273 (Moderna, Norwood, MA, USA, m1273) mRNA vaccine for the third dose and were categorized into four groups: ChAd/ChAd/BNT, ChAd/ChAd/m1273, BNT/BNT/BNT, and BNT/BNT/m1273. Four serum specimens were obtained from each participant at 0, 4, 12, and 24 weeks after the third dose (V1, V2, V3, and V4, respectively).Serum-neutralizing antibody (NAb) activity against BetaCoV/Korea/KCDC03/2020 (NCCP43326, ancestral strain) and B.1.1.529 (NCCP43411, Omicron BA.1 variant) was measured using plaque reduction neutralization tests. A 50% neutralizing dilution (ND 50 ) >10 was considered indicative of protective NAb titers. Results: In total, 186 participants were enrolled between November 24, 2021, and June 30, 2022. The respective groups received the third dose at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 132 (125 - 191), 123 (122 - 126), 186 (166 -193), and 182 (175 - 198) days after the second dose. Overall, ND 50 was lower at V1 against Omicron BA.1 than against the ancestral strain. NAb titers against the ancestral strain and Omicron BA.1 variant at V2 were increased at least 30-fold (median [IQR], 1235.35 [1021.45 - 2374.65)] and 129.8 [65.3 - 250.7], respectively). ND 50 titers against the ancestral strain and Omicron variant did not differ significantly among the four groups (P= 0.57). NAb titers were significantly lower against the Omicron variant than against the ancestral strain at V3 (median [IQR], 36.4 (17.55 - 75.09) vs. 325.9 [276.07 - 686.97]; P = 0.012). NAb titers against Omicron at V4 were 16 times lower than that at V3. Most sera exhibited a protective level (ND 50 >10) at V4 (75.0% [24/32], 73.0% [27/37], 73.3% [22/30], and 70.6% [12/17] in the ChAd/ChAd/BNT, ChAd/ChAd/m1273, BNT/BNT/BNT, and BNT/BNT/m1273 groups, respectively), with no significant differences among groups (P = 0.99). Conclusion A third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose restored waning NAb titers against Omicron BA.1. Our findings support a third-dose vaccination program to prevent the waning of humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2.