Background: Immunocompromised patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection often have prolonged viral shedding, and some are clinically suspected of reinfection with different SARSCoV-2 variants. However, data on this issue are limited. This study investigated the SARS-CoV-2 variants in serially collected respiratory samples from immunocompromised patients with prolonged viral shedding for over 12 weeks or relapsed viral shedding after at least 2 weeks of viral clearance. Materials and Methods: From February 2022 to September 2023, we prospectively enrolled immunocompromised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who had hematologic malignancies or had undergone transplantation and were admitted to a tertiary hospital. Weekly saliva or nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from enrolled patients for at least 12 weeks after diagnosis. Genomic RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed on samples, and those testing positive underwent viral culture to isolate the live virus. Spike gene full sequencing via Sanger sequencing and real-time reverse transcription-PCR for detecting mutation genes were conducted to identify SARSCoV-2 variants. Results: Among 116 enrolled patients, 20 with prolonged or relapsed viral shedding were screened to identify the variants. Of these 20 patients, 7 (35%) exhibited evidence of re-infection; one of 8 patients with prolonged viral shedding and 6 of 12 with relapsed viral shedding were reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion Our data suggest that approximately one-third of immunocompromised patients with persistent or relapsed viral shedding had reinfection with different variants of SARS-CoV-2.

Purpose: Persistent postoperative stiffness is a common complication after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR).We hypothesized that a subacromial steroid injection (SAI) may improve the early outcomes in patients with persistent stiffness without increasing steroid-associated complications. Therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of SAI in patients with persistent stiffness 3 months after ARCR. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 300 ARCR cases performed between January 2012 and May 2014, in which repair integrity was confirmed at postoperative 3 months. Patients were divided into SAI and control groups. The SAI group received a single SAI (triamcinolone 40 mg and ropivacaine 52.5 mg) to address postoperative stiffness, with no additional SAI thereafter. The control group did not receive any injections until the final follow-up. Functional and radiological outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: The mean follow-up period was 18.1±4.7 months (range, 12.1–37.2 months), with no difference between groups (p=0.731). At the time of injection, the range of motion was significantly lower in the SAI (all p＜0.001). However, functional outcomes were comparable between the two groups at 3 months after injection and the final follow-up (all p＞ 0.05). The healing failure rate at the final follow-up also did not differ between the SAI and control groups (14.9% vs. 13.2%, p=0.671). Conclusion This short-term follow-up study suggests that the administration of a single SAI to treat persistent stiffness at 3 months after ARCR may improve functional recovery without increasing the risk of healing failure.

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 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: Immunocompromised patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection often have prolonged viral shedding, and some are clinically suspected of reinfection with different SARSCoV-2 variants. However, data on this issue are limited. This study investigated the SARS-CoV-2 variants in serially collected respiratory samples from immunocompromised patients with prolonged viral shedding for over 12 weeks or relapsed viral shedding after at least 2 weeks of viral clearance. Materials and Methods: From February 2022 to September 2023, we prospectively enrolled immunocompromised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who had hematologic malignancies or had undergone transplantation and were admitted to a tertiary hospital. Weekly saliva or nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from enrolled patients for at least 12 weeks after diagnosis. Genomic RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed on samples, and those testing positive underwent viral culture to isolate the live virus. Spike gene full sequencing via Sanger sequencing and real-time reverse transcription-PCR for detecting mutation genes were conducted to identify SARSCoV-2 variants. Results: Among 116 enrolled patients, 20 with prolonged or relapsed viral shedding were screened to identify the variants. Of these 20 patients, 7 (35%) exhibited evidence of re-infection; one of 8 patients with prolonged viral shedding and 6 of 12 with relapsed viral shedding were reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion Our data suggest that approximately one-third of immunocompromised patients with persistent or relapsed viral shedding had reinfection with different variants of SARS-CoV-2.

Purpose: Persistent postoperative stiffness is a common complication after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR).We hypothesized that a subacromial steroid injection (SAI) may improve the early outcomes in patients with persistent stiffness without increasing steroid-associated complications. Therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of SAI in patients with persistent stiffness 3 months after ARCR. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 300 ARCR cases performed between January 2012 and May 2014, in which repair integrity was confirmed at postoperative 3 months. Patients were divided into SAI and control groups. The SAI group received a single SAI (triamcinolone 40 mg and ropivacaine 52.5 mg) to address postoperative stiffness, with no additional SAI thereafter. The control group did not receive any injections until the final follow-up. Functional and radiological outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: The mean follow-up period was 18.1±4.7 months (range, 12.1–37.2 months), with no difference between groups (p=0.731). At the time of injection, the range of motion was significantly lower in the SAI (all p＜0.001). However, functional outcomes were comparable between the two groups at 3 months after injection and the final follow-up (all p＞ 0.05). The healing failure rate at the final follow-up also did not differ between the SAI and control groups (14.9% vs. 13.2%, p=0.671). Conclusion This short-term follow-up study suggests that the administration of a single SAI to treat persistent stiffness at 3 months after ARCR may improve functional recovery without increasing the risk of healing failure.

Purpose: Persistent postoperative stiffness is a common complication after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR).We hypothesized that a subacromial steroid injection (SAI) may improve the early outcomes in patients with persistent stiffness without increasing steroid-associated complications. Therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of SAI in patients with persistent stiffness 3 months after ARCR. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 300 ARCR cases performed between January 2012 and May 2014, in which repair integrity was confirmed at postoperative 3 months. Patients were divided into SAI and control groups. The SAI group received a single SAI (triamcinolone 40 mg and ropivacaine 52.5 mg) to address postoperative stiffness, with no additional SAI thereafter. The control group did not receive any injections until the final follow-up. Functional and radiological outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: The mean follow-up period was 18.1±4.7 months (range, 12.1–37.2 months), with no difference between groups (p=0.731). At the time of injection, the range of motion was significantly lower in the SAI (all p＜0.001). However, functional outcomes were comparable between the two groups at 3 months after injection and the final follow-up (all p＞ 0.05). The healing failure rate at the final follow-up also did not differ between the SAI and control groups (14.9% vs. 13.2%, p=0.671). Conclusion This short-term follow-up study suggests that the administration of a single SAI to treat persistent stiffness at 3 months after ARCR may improve functional recovery without increasing the risk of healing failure.

Purpose: This study examined the status of arthroscopic shoulder surgery in ambulatory settings by analyzing a single institutional database. Materials and Methods: Three hundred and eight arthroscopic shoulder surgeries performed between June 2022 and March 2023 were reviewed retrospectively. Propensity score matching (1-to-2) was performed between the day surgery group and the inpatient group according to sex, age, tear size, and interscalene nerve block (ISNB). Finally, 59 patients in the day surgery group and 118 patients in the inpatient group were matched. The indications of the day surgery were pre-determined according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I or II, and the patient's social, medical, and surgical factors were thoroughly analyzed to define the target group of the day surgery. Complications related to voiding difficulty were prevented by classifying the patients using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) before surgery, and preventive medications were prescribed in the higher-risk patients with an IPSS of more than 7. To reduce postoperative pain, ISNB and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) were applied to all patients during the study period, while day surgery patients received an additional bolus injection (5 cc of 0.375% ropivacaine+5 cc of normal saline) before discharge instead of continuous ISNB PCA. This study compared the postoperative pain assessments at discharge and on postoperative days 1, 2, and 14, as well as the total volume of saline irrigation, surgical time, and complications between the day surgery and inpatient groups. Results: The visual analogue scale for pain (pVAS) at the time of surgery were comparable in the day surgery group (4.1±1.5) and inpatient surgery group (4.1±1.1), with no significant difference between them (p=0.35). Similarly, the postoperative pVAS at 1, 2, and 14 days postoperatively was similar in the two groups (all p>0.05). The surgical-related factors, such as the total volume of saline irrigation and surgical time, were similar in the two groups. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups (all p>0.05). Conclusion These results show that arthroscopic shoulder surgery in ambulatory settings is a safe alternative to inpatient surgery.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.