Background: A nationwide Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program for patients undergoing lower extremity orthopedic surgeries has been ongoing since 2020. The program was designed to improve clinical outcomes through early mobilization and rehabilitation after discharge. This study aimed to analyze the interim data to assess its effectiveness and suggest improvements, particularly for older patients who are more vulnerable compared to younger patients. Methods: We analyzed the data of 872 patients from seven hospitals. Patients were divided into an older-age group (OG; ≥60 years) and younger-age group (YG; <60 years). The Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores for pain were the main outcomes. Results: Participants were categorized into OG (n=801) and YG (n=71). The most common surgeries were knee joint replacement (63.7%) in OG and hip joint replacement in YG (77.5%). It took more days to enroll in the pilot program in OG (4.4 days) than YG (3.2 days). OG showed less improvement in BBS than YG for all surgeries (23.3 vs. 31.9) and hip joint surgery (19.8 vs. 33.5). In patients with hip joint replacement in OG, those with a higher number of comorbidities (≥3) showed less BBS improvement than those with fewer comorbidities (<3). In the pain domain, NRS scores decreased in both groups. Conclusion The postoperative rehabilitation education program appeared to be effective in improving physical function and reducing pain severity, though the improvement was less obvious in older patients who may require a more comprehensive approach compared to younger patients.

Background: A nationwide Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program for patients undergoing lower extremity orthopedic surgeries has been ongoing since 2020. The program was designed to improve clinical outcomes through early mobilization and rehabilitation after discharge. This study aimed to analyze the interim data to assess its effectiveness and suggest improvements, particularly for older patients who are more vulnerable compared to younger patients. Methods: We analyzed the data of 872 patients from seven hospitals. Patients were divided into an older-age group (OG; ≥60 years) and younger-age group (YG; <60 years). The Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores for pain were the main outcomes. Results: Participants were categorized into OG (n=801) and YG (n=71). The most common surgeries were knee joint replacement (63.7%) in OG and hip joint replacement in YG (77.5%). It took more days to enroll in the pilot program in OG (4.4 days) than YG (3.2 days). OG showed less improvement in BBS than YG for all surgeries (23.3 vs. 31.9) and hip joint surgery (19.8 vs. 33.5). In patients with hip joint replacement in OG, those with a higher number of comorbidities (≥3) showed less BBS improvement than those with fewer comorbidities (<3). In the pain domain, NRS scores decreased in both groups. Conclusion The postoperative rehabilitation education program appeared to be effective in improving physical function and reducing pain severity, though the improvement was less obvious in older patients who may require a more comprehensive approach compared to younger patients.

Background: A nationwide Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program for patients undergoing lower extremity orthopedic surgeries has been ongoing since 2020. The program was designed to improve clinical outcomes through early mobilization and rehabilitation after discharge. This study aimed to analyze the interim data to assess its effectiveness and suggest improvements, particularly for older patients who are more vulnerable compared to younger patients. Methods: We analyzed the data of 872 patients from seven hospitals. Patients were divided into an older-age group (OG; ≥60 years) and younger-age group (YG; <60 years). The Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores for pain were the main outcomes. Results: Participants were categorized into OG (n=801) and YG (n=71). The most common surgeries were knee joint replacement (63.7%) in OG and hip joint replacement in YG (77.5%). It took more days to enroll in the pilot program in OG (4.4 days) than YG (3.2 days). OG showed less improvement in BBS than YG for all surgeries (23.3 vs. 31.9) and hip joint surgery (19.8 vs. 33.5). In patients with hip joint replacement in OG, those with a higher number of comorbidities (≥3) showed less BBS improvement than those with fewer comorbidities (<3). In the pain domain, NRS scores decreased in both groups. Conclusion The postoperative rehabilitation education program appeared to be effective in improving physical function and reducing pain severity, though the improvement was less obvious in older patients who may require a more comprehensive approach compared to younger patients.

Purpose: To investigate the epidemiological trends and socioeconomic disparities associated with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in South Korea over a decade (2010–2021) using National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) claims data. Materials and Methods: Employing data from the NHIS database, this study identified 31753 incident AS patients in 2010–2021.We calculated the annual age-standardized prevalence and incidence rates and analyzed crude incidence rates and diagnostic patterns across age groups. Additionally, we compared the mean annual proportions of medical aid recipients between AS patients and the general population, utilizing p for trend analysis to assess the differences between the two groups across increasing age groups. Results: The study period saw a steady increase in age-standardized prevalence (from 34.6 to 91.0 per 100000) and incidence rates (from 4.41 to 8.33 per 100000 person-years), with the most substantial rise of incidence found in younger demographics. Diagnostic trends revealed a shift from internal medicine (IM) to other specialties including orthopedics with increasing patient age groups (p for trend=0.008), indicating old-age diagnosis in non-IM departments. A 1.4-fold higher proportion of medical aid recipients in AS patients (p<0.001) and the widening gap of dependency on medical aid in older age groups (p for trend=0.012) compared to the general population highlight socioeconomic disparities. Conclusion This comprehensive analysis reveals the growing epidemiological burden of AS, especially in younger populations, and the socioeconomic disparities regarding the disease in South Korea. It underscores the need for early diagnosis and effective treatment strategies, paving the way for health interventions and policies aimed at improving patient outcomes and addressing socioeconomic disparities.

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.