Objective: The upper lumbar region has distinctive anatomical characteristics that contribute to the challenges of performing discectomy. We introduce far-lateral transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. Methods: We conducted retrospective review of the patients who underwent a far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy at our institution from January 2018 to September 2024. The electronic medical records, operative records, and radiologic images of the patients were reviewed. Results: A total of 27 patients underwent far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. The patient had a mean age of 54.0 ± 13.7 years. Operation was performed at the L1–2 level in 3 patients (11.1%), L2–3 in 9 patients (33.3%), and L3–4 in 15 patients (55.6%). The patients were followed-up for a mean of 27.7 ± 19.3 months. The Oswestry Disability Index was significantly decreased from 36.3 ± 6.8 preoperatively to 3.7 ± 3.3 at last follow-up (p < 0.001). The visual analogue scale (VAS) back was significantly decreased from 7.8 ± 0.9 preoperatively to 3.1 ± 0.6 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). The VAS leg was significantly decreased from 8.1 ± 0.8 preoperatively to 2.3 ± 0.7 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). Conclusion The far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy would be a viable surgical option for upper lumbar disc herniations.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Improvement of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) is known to be a good prognostic factor in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF). In the present study, we investigated the predisposing risk factors affecting the reversibility of LV diastolic filling pattern (DFP) in patients with preserved EF. Materials and Methods: A total of 600 patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF who underwent follow-up echocardiography were enrolled between 2011 and 2020. We compared their index and follow-up echocardiography findings and determined the predisposing risk factor affecting the reversibility of LVDFP. Results: Comparing the index and follow-up echocardiography findings showed that 379 (63%) patients had improved to normal or impaired relaxation LVDFP (improved group) and 221 (37%) patients had maintained or worsened LVDFP (unimproved group).The incidence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) was significantly higher in the unimproved group than in the improved group (4.7% vs. 9.5%, p=0.026). After adjustment for relevant clinical risk factors of diastolic dysfunction, PAF was determined to be an independent predisposing risk factor for the unimproved LVDFP (odds ratio: 2.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.15, p=0.033).Among the parameters of diastolic dysfunction in follow-up echocardiography, the left atrial volume index, mean E/A ratio, and E/e' were significantly improved in patients without PAF but remained in patients with PAF. Conclusion We identified that PAF was an independent predisposing risk factor of the unimproved LVDFP in patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF. Therefore, early detection and management of PAF might be required in patients with LVDD and preserved EF to prevent adverse cardiovascular events.

Purpose: The immunological response and adverse effects of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) in patients receiving coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effects of these vaccines on AAV disease activity. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 52 patients with AAV who had received at least second doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and evaluated their immunogenicity by measuring the anti-spike (S) antibody (Ab) titer levels using the Roche Elecsys® immunoassay. Responses to the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) tool and 36-Item Short Form Survey before and after vaccination were obtained to assess AAV disease activity. Vaccine reactivity was measured using a standardized questionnaire. Results: We enrolled 52 patients with AAV. No differences were found between those who received second and third doses of vaccination in terms of AAV type, disease activity, vaccine type, or the use of immunosuppressive agents, including steroids. The median anti-S Ab titer was 3967.0 after third doses compared to 419.0 after second doses (p=0.001). Except for mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), when immunosuppressants were administered in conjunction with steroids, the Ab titer was higher after the third vaccination than that after the second dose. The BVAS remained unchanged before and after second and third doses. No life-threatening adverse events were reported. Conclusion Although COVID-19 vaccine may not produce sufficient antibodies in patients taking MMF, the vaccine did not exacerbate disease activity or cause severe side effects. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines should be considered in patients with AAV.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify the types of human rights violations and the associated psychological trauma experienced by North Korean defectors. It also examined the impact of trauma on the defectors’ interpersonal relationships, employment, and overall quality of life, while evaluating existing psychological support policies to suggest potential improvements. Methods: A multidisciplinary research team conducted an observational survey and in-depth interviews with approximately 300 North Korean defectors residing in South Korea from June to September 2017. Standardized measurement tools, including the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist (PCL-5), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7), and Short Form-8 Health Survey (SF-8), were employed. Statistical analyses consisted of frequency analysis, cross-tabulation, factor analysis, and logistic regression. Results: The findings revealed a high prevalence of human rights violations, such as public executions (82%), forced self-criticism (82.3%), and severe starvation or illness (62.7%). Additionally, there were elevated rates of PTSD (56%), severe depression (28.3%), anxiety (25%), and insomnia (23.3%). Defectors who resided in China before entering South Korea reported significantly worse mental health outcomes and a lower quality of life. Moreover, trauma was strongly and negatively correlated with social adjustment, interpersonal relationships, employment stability, and overall well-being. Conclusion An urgent revision of existing policies is needed to incorporate specialized, trauma-informed care infrastructures within medical institutions. Furthermore, broad societal education to reduce stigma and enhance integration efforts is essential to effectively support the psychological well-being and social integration of North Korean defectors.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Improvement of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) is known to be a good prognostic factor in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF). In the present study, we investigated the predisposing risk factors affecting the reversibility of LV diastolic filling pattern (DFP) in patients with preserved EF. Materials and Methods: A total of 600 patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF who underwent follow-up echocardiography were enrolled between 2011 and 2020. We compared their index and follow-up echocardiography findings and determined the predisposing risk factor affecting the reversibility of LVDFP. Results: Comparing the index and follow-up echocardiography findings showed that 379 (63%) patients had improved to normal or impaired relaxation LVDFP (improved group) and 221 (37%) patients had maintained or worsened LVDFP (unimproved group).The incidence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) was significantly higher in the unimproved group than in the improved group (4.7% vs. 9.5%, p=0.026). After adjustment for relevant clinical risk factors of diastolic dysfunction, PAF was determined to be an independent predisposing risk factor for the unimproved LVDFP (odds ratio: 2.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.15, p=0.033).Among the parameters of diastolic dysfunction in follow-up echocardiography, the left atrial volume index, mean E/A ratio, and E/e' were significantly improved in patients without PAF but remained in patients with PAF. Conclusion We identified that PAF was an independent predisposing risk factor of the unimproved LVDFP in patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF. Therefore, early detection and management of PAF might be required in patients with LVDD and preserved EF to prevent adverse cardiovascular events.

Purpose: The immunological response and adverse effects of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) in patients receiving coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effects of these vaccines on AAV disease activity. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 52 patients with AAV who had received at least second doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and evaluated their immunogenicity by measuring the anti-spike (S) antibody (Ab) titer levels using the Roche Elecsys® immunoassay. Responses to the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) tool and 36-Item Short Form Survey before and after vaccination were obtained to assess AAV disease activity. Vaccine reactivity was measured using a standardized questionnaire. Results: We enrolled 52 patients with AAV. No differences were found between those who received second and third doses of vaccination in terms of AAV type, disease activity, vaccine type, or the use of immunosuppressive agents, including steroids. The median anti-S Ab titer was 3967.0 after third doses compared to 419.0 after second doses (p=0.001). Except for mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), when immunosuppressants were administered in conjunction with steroids, the Ab titer was higher after the third vaccination than that after the second dose. The BVAS remained unchanged before and after second and third doses. No life-threatening adverse events were reported. Conclusion Although COVID-19 vaccine may not produce sufficient antibodies in patients taking MMF, the vaccine did not exacerbate disease activity or cause severe side effects. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines should be considered in patients with AAV.