Background: A systematic evaluation of potential living liver donors is essential to ensure donor safety and optimize recipient outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to assess donor acceptance rates and reasons for disqualification among individuals evaluated for LDLT at a high-volume transplant center over a one-year period. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1,087 potential living liver donors who presented for LDLT evaluation in 2023. Of these, 991 candidates advanced beyond the initial screening (Stage 1) and underwent comprehensive clinical, imaging, and pathological assessments (Stages 2 and 3). Candidates who discontinued after Stage 1 were excluded due to the absence of documented reasons for non-progression. Results: Among the 991 candidates who proceeded beyond initial screening, 473 (47.7%) completed the full donor evaluation, of whom 466 were judged to be suitable donors. Among suitable donors, 384 (82.4%) proceeded to donor hepatectomy, whereas 82 did not, primarily due to recipient-related factors such as clinical deterioration or withdrawal of consent. Donor ineligibility was determined in 422 candidates (42.6%), most commonly due to inadequate remnant liver volume (52.8%), hepatic steatosis (20.6%), and insufficient graft size (10.2%). Among candidates undergoing Stage 2 evaluation, 162 (16.3%) failed to meet steatosis criteria; 126 were excluded solely for steatosis and advised weight reduction, and 39 subsequently became eligible and successfully donated. Conclusion In this high-volume LDLT center, donor disqualification was primarily driven by remnant liver volume and hepatic steatosis. Targeted interventions such as weight reduction enabled successful donation in a subset of initially ineligible candidates, underscoring the importance of individualized donor evaluation and pre-donation optimization.

Obesity is a major global health issue and a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease (CVD). While traditional research has emphasized diet and physical inactivity, psychological factors, particularly emotional eating, are increasingly recognized as important contributors to metabolic and cardiovascular health. Emotional eating, defined as eating in response to negative emotions, represents a maladaptive coping mechanism that promotes excessive caloric intake, visceral fat accumulation, and metabolic dysregulation. Chronic stress activates the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, leading to increased cortisol secretion and appetite, while recurrent emotional eating behaviors reinforce this biological pathway and contribute to insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and systemic inflammation. Together, these mechanisms link psychological stress to cardiometabolic dysfunction and ultimately to increased CVD risk. Although direct evidence linking emotional eating to clinical CVD outcomes remains limited, accumulating evidence supports its role as a behavioral mediator connecting psychological stress, metabolic abnormalities, and cardiovascular risk. Effective management of emotional eating requires an integrated approach that combines cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness-based strategies, stress management, healthy lifestyle modification, and pharmacological treatment for obesity when indicated. Recognizing emotional eating as a modifiable behavioral risk factor may open new opportunities for early prevention and holistic management of CVD.

Purpose: Medical artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly being integrated into clinical practice and healthcare systems, raising concerns regarding safety, accountability, and governance. Despite its increasing importance, empirical comparative studies examining differences in perceptions of medical AI among key expert groups remain limited. This study aimed to compare and analyze perceptions of medical AI among medical and non-medical professionals and to systematically identify commonalities and differences across policy- and governance-relevant domains. Methods: Focus group interviews using open-ended questions were conducted with 30 experts (15 medical and 15 non-medical professionals) who had direct experience with medical AI. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis combined with qualitative comparative analysis. Analytical rigor was strengthened through independent coding and consensus-based discussions. Results: Both groups recognized the potential of medical AI to bring meaningful changes to healthcare systems. However, medical professionals primarily evaluated medical AI in terms of clinical applicability, patient safety, explainability, and accountability. In contrast, non-medical professionals emphasized technological maturity, scalability, data infrastructure, standardization, and system-integration potential. Group-specific patterns also emerged regarding perceived limitations, autonomy, educational priorities, and classification frameworks, particularly in relation to clinical risk management versus system-level design and governance considerations. Conclusion: Differences in perceptions of medical AI are systematically associated with distinct interpretive frames shaped by professional roles and responsibility structures. Effective implementation and policy design for medical AI therefore require an integrated approach that accounts for these structural differences. This study provides empirical evidence and a conceptual foundation for future quantitative and mixed-methods research on medical AI governance.

Background/Aims: This study is the first to analyze telemedicine pilot project experiences from doctors, pharmacists, and patients with different roles to support sustainable commercialization. Methods: An online survey targeted individuals (patients, doctors, and pharmacists) who participated in the telemedicine pilot project at least once between June 1, 2023, and July 17, 2024. The survey assessed satisfaction and usage conditions. The online survey conducted between May 2024 and July 2024 included 1,500 patients, 300 doctors, and 100 pharmacists. Results: Doctors, pharmacists, and patients all expressed their intention to participate actively in telemedicine in the future; however, pharmacists showed lower participation rates than doctors (84.7% vs. 67.0% vs. 91.7%, p < 0.001). The most common reason among doctors was “increasing demands from patients” (44.3%), while for pharmacists, it was “easy management of patients with chronic diseases” (67.0%). This showed a statistically significant difference between groups (p < 0.001). Among patients, 65.0% cited “lack of time and convenience.” Notably, both doctors and patients agreed that telemedicine requires more time than current practices, although their perceptions differed significantly (all p < 0.001). Additionally, 24.0% of patients who used telemedicine for "hair loss/beauty" purposes reported treatment times of “≤ 3 minutes” shorter than for other purposes. Regarding telemedicine platforms, 75.0% of doctors and 84.0% of pharmacists reported no prior experience using them. Conclusions Appropriate telemedicine systems require collaboration among doctors, pharmacists, and patients. While most groups expressed positive attitudes and future intentions, significant gaps in experience and understanding must be addressed to ensure successful implementation.

Rectal cancer, which accounts for approximately 40% of colorectal cancers, remains a major clinical concern. Recent advances in diagnostic imaging, surgical techniques, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment have steadily improved rectal cancer outcomes. Considering this, the Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary (KRCM) Committee has aimed to provide clinicians and policymakers with up-to-date, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to support optimal decision-making, reflecting current evidence, the Korean healthcare context, and patient values and preferences. The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0 were developed through multidisciplinary collaboration with related academic societies, building upon and updating the KRCM Clinical Practice Guidelines version 1.0 (titled “Multidisciplinary guidelines for the management of rectal cancer”). These consensus guidelines of the KRCM were established based on a comprehensive literature review, evidence synthesis, with recommendation development guided by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, and consideration of applicability in real-world clinical practice under the national health insurance system. Each recommendation has been presented with its strength and level of evidence.

Background: Laser procedures are integral to dermatologic practice, yet safety measures- particularly regarding ocular protection and plume control- are poorly studied in real-world settings. Objective: To evaluate current practices in eye protection, infection control, and occupational risk awareness among Korean dermatologists performing laser treatments. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among board-certified dermatologists at the 2024 Korean Society for Dermatologic Laser Surgery meeting. The questionnaire covered demographics, laser frequency, use of goggles and masks, infection control strategies, ophthalmologic monitoring, and history of warts or cancer. Results: Seventy-nine respondents completed the survey. All reported using protective goggles, but only 26.6% and 22.8% did so for CO 2 and erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet lasers, respectively. Only 24.1% underwent regular eye exams, and 13.9% reported eye conditions after starting laser practice. While 89.9% used masks, 40.8% used dental masks, which are inadequate for plume protection. Suction devices were used by 94.9%, though performance specifications were unclear. Warts were reported by 46.8% of respondents; two reported cancer diagnoses after initiating laser work. Conclusion Despite high overall adherence to basic safety practices, critical gaps remain. Our findings highlight the need for standardized guidelines and long-term occupational health monitoring to ensure safe laser practice.

Background: A novel botulinum toxin type A (Protoxin; Protox Inc.) has been developed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the newly developed Protoxin compared to the approved drug onabotulinumtoxinA (OBoNT) in moderate to severe glabellar lines. Methods: Adults with a glabellar line Facial Wrinkle Scale (FWS) score of 2 (moderate) or 3 (severe) were enrolled in the study. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either Protoxin or OBoNT. A total of 20 units of botulinum toxin was injected at five sites in the glabellar region (4 units at each site). FWS scores were assessed at baseline and at weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16 post-injection. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects at week 4 who had a reduction of 2 or more points in FWS and a final score of 0 (none) or 1 (mild). Results: A total of 274 subjects were randomized, of whom 78.1% were female. At week 4 post-treatment, the improvement rate of glabellar lines was 62.22% in the Protoxin group and 62.96% in the OBoNT group. The lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (−12.24%) exceeded the −15% margin, confirming the non-inferiority of the new drug. Safety profiles were comparable between the two groups. Conclusion Protoxin demonstrated efficacy and safety profiles comparable to those of OBoNT in the treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines.

Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by erythema, papules, ocular symptoms, and heightened sensitivity. Patients with neurogenic symptoms such as burning or stinging remain particularly difficult to manage. Current guidelines often underrepresent energy-based devices (EBDs), pigmentary sequelae, psychosocial burden, and ocular comorbidities. Objective: To examine Korean dermatologists’ expert perspectives on rosacea management, focusing on skin sensitivity, neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary changes, psychosocial impact, ocular involvement, and EBD use. Methods: A web-based, 29-item survey was administered to 25 board-certified Korean dermatologists (May–June 2025). Quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed. Results: Erythematotelangiectatic and papulopustular phenotypes with sensitivity skin predominated. EBDs (pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light) were frequently used but limited by cost and sensitivity issues. Neurogenic symptoms were recognized but rarely treated with neuromodulators. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent, yet monitoring was inconsistent.Psychosocial and ocular aspects were acknowledged but seldomly systematically addressed.Respondents expressed interest in emerging adjunctive treatments such as cold plasma, skin boosters, and holistic care approaches. Conclusion Korean dermatologists adopt individualized strategies for rosacea, yet practice gaps remain regarding neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary complications, and psychosocial and ocular comorbidities. Findings support the need for updated multidisciplinary, phenotype-driven guidelines aligned with real-world practice.

Objective: Partial resection of the superior articular process (SAP) is commonly performed during transforaminal endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (TELF) for the treatment of lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS). The present study evaluated the efficacy and feasibility of total SAP resection using the selective superior articular process resection (SSAPR) technique, in comparison with conventional TELF. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 79 patients with symptomatic LFS who were treated using TELF (52 segments) or SSAPR (34 segments) between March 2018 and September 2022. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and MacNab criteria. Vertebral slippage was measured to assess segmental stability, and postoperative complications were systematically analyzed. Results: The study cohort consisted of 79 patients (39 men and 40 women; mean age, 61.9±14.2 years) who were followed for a mean duration of 14.5±2.2 months. At the final follow-up, no significant differences were identified between the TELF and SSAPR groups in VAS or ODI scores (p=0.603 and p=0.776, respectively). Vertebral slippage increased significantly in the TELF group, from 5.49±3.64 mm to 8.75±6.78 mm (p=0.019), whereas only minimal changes were observed in the SSAPR group, from 3.67±3.57 mm to 3.86±3.17 mm (p=0.858). Grade 2 dysesthesia occurred in 12.8% of TELF cases but was not observed in the SSAPR group (p=0.07). Conclusion The SSAPR technique provides effective foraminal decompression with improved surgical efficiency and a lower risk of postoperative nerve irritation, while maintaining segmental stability. These findings support the clinical utility of total SAP resection as a safe and viable alternative to conventional partial SAP resection for the treatment of LFS.