Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic, disabling, and functional bowel disorder that significantly affects social functioning and reduces quality of life and increases social costs. The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility published clinical practice guidelines on the management of IBS based on a systematic review of the literature in 2017, and planned to revise these guidelines in light of new evidence on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of IBS. The current revised version of the guidelines is consistent with the previous version and targets adults diagnosed with or suspected of having IBS. These guidelines were developed using a combination of de novo and adaptation methods, with analyses of existing guidelines and discussions within the committee, leading to the identification of key clinical questions. Finally, the guidelines consisted of 22 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and risk factors of IBS, 4 regarding diagnostic modalities and strategies, 2 regarding general management, and 13 regarding medical treatment. For each statement, the advantages, disadvantages, and precautions were thoroughly detailed. The modified Delphi method was used to achieve expert consensus to adopt the core recommendations of the guidelines. These guidelines serve as a reference for clinicians (including primary care physicians, general healthcare providers, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients, helping them to make informed decisions regarding IBS management.

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.

Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

Objective: : Dural substitutes have been widely used in decompressive craniectomy to prevent adhesion, and have significantly reduced blood loss and operation time. However, there are only limited studies providing information regarding detailed techniques and the specific operation time that is associated with good prognoses. In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of using a dural substitute as an anti-adhesive material during cranioplasty, focusing on technical details and operation time from incision to bone closure. Methods: : A retrospectively reviewed total of 66 patients were included who underwent a craniectomy and subsequent cranioplasty caused by either a severe traumatic brain injury (n=35) or malignant infarction (n=31). The patients were divided into two groups depending on whether Neuro-Patch was used or not (31 in the Neuro-Patch group, 35 in the non-Neuro-Patch group). Propensity score matching was used to minimize the differences. Associated morbidities as well as operation time, and blood loss were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results: : To prevent adhesion, Neuro-Patch was placed as an onlay, enough to cover the surrounding skull at least 1 cm beyond the bone edges. A small piece was also placed over the temporalis muscle during the craniectomy. A step-by-step dissection was performed to minimize retraction-related injury during the subsequent cranioplasty. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (54.6±34.9 vs. 149.0±70.8 mL, p<0.001) and the mean time from incision to bone closure in the Neuro-Patch group was 40.8±14.3 minutes, which was significantly lower than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (91.5±38.2 minutes) as well. For each analysis of complications, the differences were not significant, however, the overall complication rate was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (9.7%) than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (42.9%). Conclusion : Neuro-Patch can be used safely and effectively as an anti-adhesive substitute during cranioplasty. To improve clinical outcomes as well as intraoperative parameters including the time from incision to bone closure, planned placement of Neuro-Patch during craniectomy and the step-by-step dissection during cranioplasty is important.

Objective: : Dural substitutes have been widely used in decompressive craniectomy to prevent adhesion, and have significantly reduced blood loss and operation time. However, there are only limited studies providing information regarding detailed techniques and the specific operation time that is associated with good prognoses. In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of using a dural substitute as an anti-adhesive material during cranioplasty, focusing on technical details and operation time from incision to bone closure. Methods: : A retrospectively reviewed total of 66 patients were included who underwent a craniectomy and subsequent cranioplasty caused by either a severe traumatic brain injury (n=35) or malignant infarction (n=31). The patients were divided into two groups depending on whether Neuro-Patch was used or not (31 in the Neuro-Patch group, 35 in the non-Neuro-Patch group). Propensity score matching was used to minimize the differences. Associated morbidities as well as operation time, and blood loss were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results: : To prevent adhesion, Neuro-Patch was placed as an onlay, enough to cover the surrounding skull at least 1 cm beyond the bone edges. A small piece was also placed over the temporalis muscle during the craniectomy. A step-by-step dissection was performed to minimize retraction-related injury during the subsequent cranioplasty. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (54.6±34.9 vs. 149.0±70.8 mL, p<0.001) and the mean time from incision to bone closure in the Neuro-Patch group was 40.8±14.3 minutes, which was significantly lower than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (91.5±38.2 minutes) as well. For each analysis of complications, the differences were not significant, however, the overall complication rate was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (9.7%) than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (42.9%). Conclusion : Neuro-Patch can be used safely and effectively as an anti-adhesive substitute during cranioplasty. To improve clinical outcomes as well as intraoperative parameters including the time from incision to bone closure, planned placement of Neuro-Patch during craniectomy and the step-by-step dissection during cranioplasty is important.

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: : Dural substitutes have been widely used in decompressive craniectomy to prevent adhesion, and have significantly reduced blood loss and operation time. However, there are only limited studies providing information regarding detailed techniques and the specific operation time that is associated with good prognoses. In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of using a dural substitute as an anti-adhesive material during cranioplasty, focusing on technical details and operation time from incision to bone closure. Methods: : A retrospectively reviewed total of 66 patients were included who underwent a craniectomy and subsequent cranioplasty caused by either a severe traumatic brain injury (n=35) or malignant infarction (n=31). The patients were divided into two groups depending on whether Neuro-Patch was used or not (31 in the Neuro-Patch group, 35 in the non-Neuro-Patch group). Propensity score matching was used to minimize the differences. Associated morbidities as well as operation time, and blood loss were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results: : To prevent adhesion, Neuro-Patch was placed as an onlay, enough to cover the surrounding skull at least 1 cm beyond the bone edges. A small piece was also placed over the temporalis muscle during the craniectomy. A step-by-step dissection was performed to minimize retraction-related injury during the subsequent cranioplasty. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (54.6±34.9 vs. 149.0±70.8 mL, p<0.001) and the mean time from incision to bone closure in the Neuro-Patch group was 40.8±14.3 minutes, which was significantly lower than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (91.5±38.2 minutes) as well. For each analysis of complications, the differences were not significant, however, the overall complication rate was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (9.7%) than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (42.9%). Conclusion : Neuro-Patch can be used safely and effectively as an anti-adhesive substitute during cranioplasty. To improve clinical outcomes as well as intraoperative parameters including the time from incision to bone closure, planned placement of Neuro-Patch during craniectomy and the step-by-step dissection during cranioplasty is important.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic, disabling, and functional bowel disorder that significantly affects social functioning and reduces quality of life and increases social costs. The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility published clinical practice guidelines on the management of IBS based on a systematic review of the literature in 2017, and planned to revise these guidelines in light of new evidence on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of IBS. The current revised version of the guidelines is consistent with the previous version and targets adults diagnosed with or suspected of having IBS. These guidelines were developed using a combination of de novo and adaptation methods, with analyses of existing guidelines and discussions within the committee, leading to the identification of key clinical questions. Finally, the guidelines consisted of 22 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and risk factors of IBS, 4 regarding diagnostic modalities and strategies, 2 regarding general management, and 13 regarding medical treatment. For each statement, the advantages, disadvantages, and precautions were thoroughly detailed. The modified Delphi method was used to achieve expert consensus to adopt the core recommendations of the guidelines. These guidelines serve as a reference for clinicians (including primary care physicians, general healthcare providers, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients, helping them to make informed decisions regarding IBS management.