• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.33-39
• /
• 2007

Purpose: Few studies have been done for spinal injuries after skiing and snowboarding accidents. Assuming that the riding patterns of skiing and snowboarding were different, we analyzed the differences between the mechanisms, diagnoses and levels of spinal injuries caused by them. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of spinal hazards associated with skiing and snowboarding in order to educate skiers and snowboarders. Methods: We conducted a prospective study of 96 patients who had sustained spinal injuries as a result of skiing and snowboarding accidents from January 2003 to March 2006. We used a questionnaire, radiological studies, history taking, and physical examinations. We analyzed the mechanism of injury, the level of spinal injury, the severity of spinal injury, and the Abbreviated Injury Scale scores (AIS score). We used the t-test and the chi-square test. Results: The skiing and the snowboarding injury group included in 96 patients. The skiing injury group included 30 patients (31.2%), and the snowboarding injury group included the remaining 66 patients (69.8%). The primary mechanism of injury in skiing was collisions and in snowboarding was slip downs (p=0.508). The primary level of spinal injury in skiing and snowboarding was at the L-spine level (p=0.547). The most common athlete ability of the injured person was at the intermediate level (p=0.954). The injured were most commonly at the beginner or the intermediate level (p=0.302). The primary diagnosis of spinal injury in skiing and snowboarding was back spain (p=0.686). The AIS scores did not differed between the two groups (p=0.986). Conclusion: The most common spinal injury after skiing and snowboarding accidents was back sprain. There was no difference in the severity of spinal injury between skiing and snowboarding accidents.

• Journal of Breast Disease
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.60-72
• /
• 2018

Purpose: According to American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines, breast cancer is human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive if there is HER2 protein overexpression at a 3+ level on immunohistochemistry (IHC 3+) or gene amplification (more than six copies per nucleus) on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH+). However, there have been few reports on whether outcomes differ based on diagnosis by these two techniques. In this study, we compared outcomes based on the two methods in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of HER2-positive breast cancer in 18,304 patients, including 14,652 IHC 3+ patients and 3,652 FISH+ patients from the Korean Breast Cancer Society Registry. We compared breast cancer-specific survival and overall survival based on IHC 3+ and FISH+ status with or without trastuzumab. Results: Breast cancer-specific survival was significantly different between the IHC 3+ and FISH+ groups, with 5-year cumulative survival rates of 95.0% for IHC 3+ and 98.5% for FISH+ patients who did not receive trastuzumab (p=0.001) in Kaplan-Meier methods. However, there were no significant differences in breast cancer-specific survival and overall survival between IHC 3+ and FISH+ groups regardless of trastuzumab treatment in Cox proportional hazards models. Conclusion: The survival outcomes were not affected by the different two diagnostic methods of HER2-positive breast cancer. Further research to evaluate differences in prognosis and other characteristics according to the diagnostic methods of HER2 positivity is needed in the future.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.1-10
• /
• 2013

IEC publications have applied in many countries all over the world such as Europe or Japan and these also have been published as in dustrial standards (KS) and notifications of Korea Food and Drug Administration (KFDA) in Korea. As the general standard of IEC 60601 series for medical electric (ME) equipment was revised as $3^{rd}$ edition in 2005, additional and particular standards have been revised or established newly. Under these circumstances, it is importance for manufacturing and assembling companies or authorized testing companies to understand the trend for revisions of IEC publications. Therefore in this study, the latest version of 3 IEC standards related to medical X-ray equipment : IEC 60601-2-44 for X-ray equipment for computed tomography (CT), IEC 60601-2-45 for mammographic X-ray equipment and IEC 60601-2-54 for X-ray equipment for radiography or radioscopy were covered and analyzed for trends and features accompanied by revision based on IEC 60601-1 $3^{rd}$ Ed. As KFDA notifications in force have referred to the particular standards based on 2nd edition of IEC 60601-1, those revised version of 3 particular standards were compared to KFDA notifications in force. The features of the latest standards applying IEC 60601-1 $3^{rd}$ Ed were shown as following: 1) Requirements for mechanical hazards, especially (motorized) moving parts were emphasized. 2) Indication and recording of patient dose were required. 3) Risk management process was introduced and enabled to monitor potential risks systematically. 4) DR system (digital radiography system) as well as analogue system (film-screen system) was included in the scope. Presently, KFDA will revise the notifications applying the particular standards based on IEC 60601-1 $3^{rd}$ Ed in a few years. Therefore the features of particular standards applying IEC 60601-1 $3^{rd}$ Ed was expected to help manufacturers, assemblers or testing companies of medical electric equipment understand IEC publications or KFDA notifications slated to be published.