In the case of a soft tissue defect which requires thin & pliable tissues, the choice of donor site is limited due to flap bulkiness and donor site morbidity. To overcome these problems, a variety of perforator-based flaps such as paraspinous and parasacral perforator flap, deep inferior epigastric perforator flap, gluteal perforator flap, and thoracodorsal artery perforator flap have recently been introduced. We experienced 8 cases of soft tissue defects from December 1996 to March 1999 using the thoracodorsal artery perforator flap for reconstruction. We could elevate the cutaneous flap with preservation of the latissimus dorsi muscle flap only when it was based on one cutaneous perforator. Defatting procedure was possible for further thinning of skin flap. In one case, axillary defect after release of postburn scar contracture was repaired with island perforator flap and the other seven cases were repaired with free flap. The results were satisfactory. We believe the thoracodorsal artery perforator flap is useful for reconstruction of soft tissue defects which are large or under conditions requiring thin flap.
Arteries* ; Cicatrix ; Contracture ; Free Tissue Flaps ; Humans ; Perforator Flap ; Skin* ; Superficial Back Muscles ; Tissue Donors

No abstract available.
Vitamin K Deficiency* ; Vitamin K* ; Vitamins*

The peer review process ensures the integrity of scientific research. This is particularly important in the medical field, where research findings directly impact patient care. However, the rapid growth of publications has strained reviewers, causing delays and potential declines in quality. Generative artificial intelligence, especially large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, may assist researchers with efficient, high-quality reviews. This review explores the integration of LLMs into peer review, highlighting their strengths in linguistic tasks and challenges in assessing scientific validity, particularly in clinical medicine. Key points for integration include initial screening, reviewer matching, feedback support, and language review. However, implementing LLMs for these purposes will necessitate addressing biases, privacy concerns, and data confidentiality. We recommend using LLMs as complementary tools under clear guidelines to support, not replace, human expertise in maintaining rigorous peer review standards.

The peer review process ensures the integrity of scientific research. This is particularly important in the medical field, where research findings directly impact patient care. However, the rapid growth of publications has strained reviewers, causing delays and potential declines in quality. Generative artificial intelligence, especially large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, may assist researchers with efficient, high-quality reviews. This review explores the integration of LLMs into peer review, highlighting their strengths in linguistic tasks and challenges in assessing scientific validity, particularly in clinical medicine. Key points for integration include initial screening, reviewer matching, feedback support, and language review. However, implementing LLMs for these purposes will necessitate addressing biases, privacy concerns, and data confidentiality. We recommend using LLMs as complementary tools under clear guidelines to support, not replace, human expertise in maintaining rigorous peer review standards.

The peer review process ensures the integrity of scientific research. This is particularly important in the medical field, where research findings directly impact patient care. However, the rapid growth of publications has strained reviewers, causing delays and potential declines in quality. Generative artificial intelligence, especially large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, may assist researchers with efficient, high-quality reviews. This review explores the integration of LLMs into peer review, highlighting their strengths in linguistic tasks and challenges in assessing scientific validity, particularly in clinical medicine. Key points for integration include initial screening, reviewer matching, feedback support, and language review. However, implementing LLMs for these purposes will necessitate addressing biases, privacy concerns, and data confidentiality. We recommend using LLMs as complementary tools under clear guidelines to support, not replace, human expertise in maintaining rigorous peer review standards.

PURPOSE: To analyze the characteristics of defendants, court rulings and the compensation received in medical disputes relating to ophthalmology. METHODS: Retrospective analyses of ophthalmic claims obtained from websites between 1989 and 2014 were performed. RESULTS: Among 42 cases, 26 cases were ruled partially in favor of plaintiffs and 16 cases, ruled in favor of the defendant. Regarding the type of hospital, private clinics accounted for 22 claims, tertiary referral hospitals took 16 claims, and the secondary hospitals took 6 claims. The judgment amount of all of the lawsuits was Won1,770,466,250 and average amount was Won66,743,168 (Won5,000,000-Won455,869,936). The condition with the highest mean payment per claim was glaucoma (Won223,788,608). The consolation money for emotional distress due to violation of liability for explanation comprised a large proportion of the compensation, accounting for 62% of total payment. The conditions most likely to result in payment were those related to the retina, which occurred in 7 cases (70%). The conditions most likely to be appealed to a higher court were those involving oculoplasty (100%). Mismanagement of tests and misdiagnosis occurred in 8 cases (62%), mismanagement of treatment occurred in 3 cases (23%), and mismanagement of anesthesia and recovery occurred in 1 case (9%). CONCLUSIONS: Among all claims, those involving private clinics were most commonly involved (52%) and 62% of all claims were decided partially in favor of plaintiffs. Violation of liability during the explanation of the condition and negligence during the act of diagnosis and treatment were significant reasons for payment. Examination of these cases will help to promote patient safety and reduce repeated medical disputes.
Anesthesia ; Compensation and Redress ; Diagnosis ; Diagnostic Errors ; Dissent and Disputes ; Glaucoma ; Hospitals, Private ; Judgment ; Jurisprudence* ; Korea ; Malpractice ; Ophthalmology* ; Patient Safety ; Retina ; Retrospective Studies ; Tertiary Care Centers

PURPOSE: To analyze the characteristics of defendants, court rulings and the compensation received in medical disputes relating to ophthalmology. METHODS: Retrospective analyses of ophthalmic claims obtained from websites between 1989 and 2014 were performed. RESULTS: Among 42 cases, 26 cases were ruled partially in favor of plaintiffs and 16 cases, ruled in favor of the defendant. Regarding the type of hospital, private clinics accounted for 22 claims, tertiary referral hospitals took 16 claims, and the secondary hospitals took 6 claims. The judgment amount of all of the lawsuits was Won1,770,466,250 and average amount was Won66,743,168 (Won5,000,000-Won455,869,936). The condition with the highest mean payment per claim was glaucoma (Won223,788,608). The consolation money for emotional distress due to violation of liability for explanation comprised a large proportion of the compensation, accounting for 62% of total payment. The conditions most likely to result in payment were those related to the retina, which occurred in 7 cases (70%). The conditions most likely to be appealed to a higher court were those involving oculoplasty (100%). Mismanagement of tests and misdiagnosis occurred in 8 cases (62%), mismanagement of treatment occurred in 3 cases (23%), and mismanagement of anesthesia and recovery occurred in 1 case (9%). CONCLUSIONS: Among all claims, those involving private clinics were most commonly involved (52%) and 62% of all claims were decided partially in favor of plaintiffs. Violation of liability during the explanation of the condition and negligence during the act of diagnosis and treatment were significant reasons for payment. Examination of these cases will help to promote patient safety and reduce repeated medical disputes.
Anesthesia ; Compensation and Redress ; Diagnosis ; Diagnostic Errors ; Dissent and Disputes ; Glaucoma ; Hospitals, Private ; Judgment ; Jurisprudence* ; Korea ; Malpractice ; Ophthalmology* ; Patient Safety ; Retina ; Retrospective Studies ; Tertiary Care Centers