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.

Background: The oxygen reserve index (ORi) noninvasively measures oxygen levels within the mild hyperoxia range. To evaluate whether a degree of increase in the ORi during preoxygenation for general anesthesia is associated with the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Methods: We enrolled 154 patients who underwent preoperative pulmonary function tests and were scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia. We aimed to measure the increase in ORi during preoxygenation before general anesthesia and analyze its association with PPCs. Results: PPCs occurred in 76 (49%) participants. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the three-minute preoxygenation ORi was significantly associated with PPCs (Odds ratio [OR]: 0.02, 95% CI [0.00–0.16], P < 0.001). The areas under the curve (AUC [95% CI]) in the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the three-minute preoxygenation ORi for PPCs were 0.64 (0.55–0.73). After a subgroup analysis, multivariate logistic regression showed that the three-minute preoxygenation ORi was significantly associated with PPCs among patients who underwent thoracic surgery (OR: 0.01, 95% CI [0.00–0.19], P = 0.006). The AUC of the three-minute preoxygenation ORi for PPCs was 0.72 (0.57–0.86) in patients who underwent thoracic surgery. Conclusions A low ORi measured after 3 min of preoxygenation for general anesthesia was associated with an increased risk of PPCs, including those undergoing thoracic surgery. This study demonstrated the potential of ORi, measured after oxygen administration, as a tool for evaluating lung function that complements traditional lung function tests and scoring systems.

Ketone bodies produced by sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors can be advantageous, providing an efficient and stable energy source for the brain and muscles. However, in patients with diabetes, ketogenesis induced by SGLT2 inhibitors may be harmful, potentially resulting in severe diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). During fasting, ketone body production serves as an alternative and efficient energy source for the brain by utilizing stored fat, promoting mental clarity, and reducing dependence on glucose. The concurrent use of SGLT2 inhibitors during perioperative fasting may further elevate the risk of euglycemic DKA. We describe a case of DKA that occurred during perioperative fasting in a patient receiving empagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor. This case underscores the importance of recognizing the potential risk of DKA in patients with diabetes using SGLT2 inhibitors during perioperative fasting.

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: 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.

For patients with edentulous maxillae, creating a prosthetic treatment plan involves considering anatomical factors, aesthetics, the patient’s financial situation, and oral hygiene capabilities. In this case, CAD-CAM technology was used to accurately plan implant placements for a full arch fixed restoration based on the design of the final prosthesis. A customized surgical guide ensured precise implant placement and a provisional restoration was created using CAD-CAM. The definitive prosthesis was then created based on the second provisional restoration that has been previously used and adjusted by the patient. This approach achieved an excellent functional and aesthetic outcome, highlighting the benefits of digital approach and its potential for further clinical applications.

Background/Aims: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) frequently occurs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly when influenced by factors such as abdominal infections, IBD flare-ups, or surgical procedures. The implications of PVT range from immediate issues such as intestinal ischemia to long-term concerns including portal hypertension and its complications. However, there is a notable gap in comprehensive studies on PVT in IBD, especially with the increasing incidence of IBD in Asia. This research aimed to evaluate the clinical features and outcomes of PVT in patients with IBD at a leading hospital in South Korea. Methods: This retrospective analysis reviewed adult patients diagnosed with both IBD and PVT from 1989 to 2021 at a renowned South Korean medical center. The study focused on patient characteristics, specifics of PVT, administered treatments, and outcomes, all confirmed through enhanced CT scans. Results: A total of 78 patients met the study’s criteria. Notably, only 20.5% (16/78) were treated with oral anticoagulants; however, a vast majority (96.2%; 75/78) achieved complete radiographic resolution (CRR). When comparing patients receiving anticoagulants to those who did not, a significant preference for anticoagulant use was observed in cases where the main portal vein was affected, as opposed to just the left or right veins (p = 0.006). However, multivariable analysis indicated that neither anticoagulant use nor previous surgeries significantly impacted CRR. Conclusions Patients with IBD and PVT generally had favorable outcomes, regardless of anticoagulant use.

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: 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.