Purpose: We report a case of primary small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma arising from the lacrimal sac. Case summary: A 54-year-old man presented with epiphora that had been present for 1 month. He underwent lacrimal syringe analysis of the lower punctum in the right eye, which demonstrated fluid regurgitation from the upper punctum. Computed tomography revealed a 3.0 × 3.4 × 3.0 cm mass with an ill-defined margin in the right lacrimal sac, which demonstrated invasion of the lacrimal duct and bony destruction of the inferior and medial orbital walls. Incisional biopsy and histologic examination showed that the tumor was composed of small round tumor cells. On the basis of histopathological and immunohistochemical evaluations, a diagnosis of small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma was made. The patient received chemotherapy. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of primary small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma arising from the lacrimal sac in Korea. Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma in the lacrimal sac should be regarded as a differential diagnosis for patients with a nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Purpose: We report a case of primary small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma arising from the lacrimal sac. Case summary: A 54-year-old man presented with epiphora that had been present for 1 month. He underwent lacrimal syringe analysis of the lower punctum in the right eye, which demonstrated fluid regurgitation from the upper punctum. Computed tomography revealed a 3.0 × 3.4 × 3.0 cm mass with an ill-defined margin in the right lacrimal sac, which demonstrated invasion of the lacrimal duct and bony destruction of the inferior and medial orbital walls. Incisional biopsy and histologic examination showed that the tumor was composed of small round tumor cells. On the basis of histopathological and immunohistochemical evaluations, a diagnosis of small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma was made. The patient received chemotherapy. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of primary small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma arising from the lacrimal sac in Korea. Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma in the lacrimal sac should be regarded as a differential diagnosis for patients with a nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Objective: This study compared the effects of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) versus resuscitation alone, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) with PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings from inception until March 10, 2022. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) and ROB 2.0 tools were used to assess the risk of bias for non-randomized studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-two studies, including 1,762 participants, were retrieved. Based on randomized controlled trials, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-2.49; very low certainty of evidence) and improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.19; 95% CI 0.01-3.72; very low certainty of evidence). Based on non-randomized studies, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.21; I2=54%; very low certainty of evidence), improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.18-2.46; I2=75%; very low certainty of evidence), and reducing the post procedural complications (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.39-1.48; I2=66%; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion There is high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP compared to resuscitation only, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, REBOA following PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. (Registration No. CRD42022311628)

Objective: This study compared the effects of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) versus resuscitation alone, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) with PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings from inception until March 10, 2022. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) and ROB 2.0 tools were used to assess the risk of bias for non-randomized studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-two studies, including 1,762 participants, were retrieved. Based on randomized controlled trials, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-2.49; very low certainty of evidence) and improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.19; 95% CI 0.01-3.72; very low certainty of evidence). Based on non-randomized studies, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.21; I2=54%; very low certainty of evidence), improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.18-2.46; I2=75%; very low certainty of evidence), and reducing the post procedural complications (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.39-1.48; I2=66%; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion There is high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP compared to resuscitation only, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, REBOA following PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. (Registration No. CRD42022311628)

Objective: This study compared the effects of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) versus resuscitation alone, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) with PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings from inception until March 10, 2022. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) and ROB 2.0 tools were used to assess the risk of bias for non-randomized studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-two studies, including 1,762 participants, were retrieved. Based on randomized controlled trials, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-2.49; very low certainty of evidence) and improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.19; 95% CI 0.01-3.72; very low certainty of evidence). Based on non-randomized studies, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.21; I2=54%; very low certainty of evidence), improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.18-2.46; I2=75%; very low certainty of evidence), and reducing the post procedural complications (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.39-1.48; I2=66%; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion There is high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP compared to resuscitation only, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, REBOA following PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. (Registration No. CRD42022311628)

Objective: This study compared the effects of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) versus resuscitation alone, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) with PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings from inception until March 10, 2022. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) and ROB 2.0 tools were used to assess the risk of bias for non-randomized studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-two studies, including 1,762 participants, were retrieved. Based on randomized controlled trials, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-2.49; very low certainty of evidence) and improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.19; 95% CI 0.01-3.72; very low certainty of evidence). Based on non-randomized studies, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.21; I2=54%; very low certainty of evidence), improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.18-2.46; I2=75%; very low certainty of evidence), and reducing the post procedural complications (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.39-1.48; I2=66%; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion There is high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP compared to resuscitation only, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, REBOA following PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. (Registration No. CRD42022311628)

Noroviruses (NoV) are the major viral pathogen causing epidemic acute gastroenteritis and outbreaks of foodborne and waterborne illness. During the local festival in Chungnam province, group food poisoning occurred outbreak by NoV infections in Jan 2019. In this study, epidemiological analysis and molecular characterization were conducted such as genotyping, phylogeny. The prevalent genotypes of food poisoning events were NoV GII.3 and GII.17, and NoV GII.3 and GII.17 isolates of this study were completely matched in nucleotide sequence comparison of capsid gene region, respectively. In underground water and stream water, various multiple genotypes of noroviruses were detected including NoV GII.3, GII.8 and GI.4 in aquatic environment of the local festival site. Among 32 worker samples, various NoVs of five genotypes (GI.7, GI.8, GII.3, GII.8, GII.17) were detected in 12 samples and expected to causing NoV contaminated by exposure to groundwater. NoV genotype GII.3, which was detected from groundwater 2, was completely consistent with that of patients and workers. Therefore, groundwater within the local festival site could be main cause of food poisoning event. Because NoV outbreaks are caused by fecal to oral transmission, proper management of sewage purification facilities, groundwater and sanitary toilets is required for many visitors, and efforts are needed to maintain clean environment.
Base Sequence ; Capsid ; Chungcheongnam-do ; Disease Outbreaks ; Epidemiologic Studies ; Foodborne Diseases ; Gastroenteritis ; Genotype ; Groundwater ; Holidays ; Humans ; Korea ; Norovirus ; Phylogeny ; Rivers ; Sewage ; Water