Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objectives: Moral sensitivity and moral judgment are key factors influencing ethical decision-making in the clinical practice of dental hygienists. This study utilized a dilemma discussion in a dental hygiene ethics class to assess changes in the moral sensitivity and moral judgment of students and to examine the implications of these changes. Methods: The study included 46 sophomore students from the Department of Dental Hygiene who were enrolled in a dental hygiene ethics course during the second semester of 2021. The class employed the dilemma discussion method in the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model-based Development Beyond Learning (DBL) dental hygiene ethics curriculum. This approach aimed to help dental hygienists develop professional ethics and make sound ethical judgments. To evaluate the degree of change in moral perception before and after the dilemma discussion class, a predesigned questionnaire was administered twice—once in the first week and again in the 15th week of the course. Results: Moral sensitivity increased following the dental hygiene ethics course. Although moral judgement did no show a statistically significant change, students demonstrated a noticeable shift toward deeper consideration in their ethical reasoning. Conclusions Dental hygiene programs should explore diverse instructional designs and activities to foster ethical competencies. This study provides insights that may contribute to improving the ethical thinking skills of future dental hygienists.

Objectives: Moral sensitivity and moral judgment are key factors influencing ethical decision-making in the clinical practice of dental hygienists. This study utilized a dilemma discussion in a dental hygiene ethics class to assess changes in the moral sensitivity and moral judgment of students and to examine the implications of these changes. Methods: The study included 46 sophomore students from the Department of Dental Hygiene who were enrolled in a dental hygiene ethics course during the second semester of 2021. The class employed the dilemma discussion method in the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model-based Development Beyond Learning (DBL) dental hygiene ethics curriculum. This approach aimed to help dental hygienists develop professional ethics and make sound ethical judgments. To evaluate the degree of change in moral perception before and after the dilemma discussion class, a predesigned questionnaire was administered twice—once in the first week and again in the 15th week of the course. Results: Moral sensitivity increased following the dental hygiene ethics course. Although moral judgement did no show a statistically significant change, students demonstrated a noticeable shift toward deeper consideration in their ethical reasoning. Conclusions Dental hygiene programs should explore diverse instructional designs and activities to foster ethical competencies. This study provides insights that may contribute to improving the ethical thinking skills of future dental hygienists.

Objectives: Moral sensitivity and moral judgment are key factors influencing ethical decision-making in the clinical practice of dental hygienists. This study utilized a dilemma discussion in a dental hygiene ethics class to assess changes in the moral sensitivity and moral judgment of students and to examine the implications of these changes. Methods: The study included 46 sophomore students from the Department of Dental Hygiene who were enrolled in a dental hygiene ethics course during the second semester of 2021. The class employed the dilemma discussion method in the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model-based Development Beyond Learning (DBL) dental hygiene ethics curriculum. This approach aimed to help dental hygienists develop professional ethics and make sound ethical judgments. To evaluate the degree of change in moral perception before and after the dilemma discussion class, a predesigned questionnaire was administered twice—once in the first week and again in the 15th week of the course. Results: Moral sensitivity increased following the dental hygiene ethics course. Although moral judgement did no show a statistically significant change, students demonstrated a noticeable shift toward deeper consideration in their ethical reasoning. Conclusions Dental hygiene programs should explore diverse instructional designs and activities to foster ethical competencies. This study provides insights that may contribute to improving the ethical thinking skills of future dental hygienists.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objectives: Moral sensitivity and moral judgment are key factors influencing ethical decision-making in the clinical practice of dental hygienists. This study utilized a dilemma discussion in a dental hygiene ethics class to assess changes in the moral sensitivity and moral judgment of students and to examine the implications of these changes. Methods: The study included 46 sophomore students from the Department of Dental Hygiene who were enrolled in a dental hygiene ethics course during the second semester of 2021. The class employed the dilemma discussion method in the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model-based Development Beyond Learning (DBL) dental hygiene ethics curriculum. This approach aimed to help dental hygienists develop professional ethics and make sound ethical judgments. To evaluate the degree of change in moral perception before and after the dilemma discussion class, a predesigned questionnaire was administered twice—once in the first week and again in the 15th week of the course. Results: Moral sensitivity increased following the dental hygiene ethics course. Although moral judgement did no show a statistically significant change, students demonstrated a noticeable shift toward deeper consideration in their ethical reasoning. Conclusions Dental hygiene programs should explore diverse instructional designs and activities to foster ethical competencies. This study provides insights that may contribute to improving the ethical thinking skills of future dental hygienists.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) offers superior dose distributions and greater biological effectiveness than conventional photon-based radiotherapy (RT). Due to its higher linear energy transfer and relative biological effectiveness, CIRT is particularly effective against radioresistant tumors and those located near critical organs. Since the first dedicated CIRT facility was established in Japan in 1994, CIRT has demonstrated remarkable efficacy against various malignancies, including head and neck tumors, skull base and upper cervical spine tumors, non-small-cell lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and bone and soft tissue sarcomas. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the current status of CIRT, highlighting its clinical indications and future directions. According to clinical studies, CIRT achieves high local control rates with manageable toxicity across multiple cancer types. For instance, in head and neck tumors (e.g., adenoid cystic carcinoma and mucosal melanoma), CIRT has achieved local control rates exceeding 80%. In early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer, CIRT has resulted in local control rates over 90% with minimal toxicity. Moreover, CIRT has shown promise in treating challenging cases of hepatocellular carcinoma and pancreatic cancer, where conventional therapies are limited. Nonetheless, the global adoption of CIRT remains limited due to high costs and complexity. Future directions include conducting randomized controlled trials to establish high-level evidence, integrating new technologies such as ultrahigh-dose-rate (FLASH) therapy, and expanding CIRT facilities globally with strategic planning and cost-effectiveness analyses. If these challenges are addressed, CIRT is poised to play a transformative role in cancer treatment, improving survival rates and the quality of life.