1.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
2.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
3.Evaluation of the Popper Test as an Alternative to the Valsalva Maneuver for Assessing Eustachian Tube Function
Dae Hyun KIM ; Moon Su KWAK ; Ju Ha PARK ; Seong Hoon BAE
Korean Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 2025;68(2):58-61
Background and Objectives:
The Valsalva test, although commonly utilized to assess the Eustachian tube function, is limited by drawbacks such as inconsistent pressure increases in the nasal cavity. Thus we introduced the “Popper test,” a tympanic membrane inflation test using the automatic middle ear inflation device known as middle ear inflation device (MEID), to explore its viability as an alternative to the Valsalva test.Subjects and Method We sampled 80 ears from patients between June 1, 2023, and August 1, 2023. Each patient underwent both the Valsalva and Popper tests using the MEID. Participants were divided into three categories: the “unable” group (patients who could not follow the Valsalva maneuver) and the “successful” and “unsuccessful” groups (patients whose attempts at the Valsalva or Popper tests either successed or failed). Success or failure was determined using an otoscope to assess the bulging of the tympanic membrane.
Results:
Of the 68 ears with normal middle ear pressure, 30.9% (21 ears) showed an inability to perform the Valsalva test, 45.6% (31 ears) successfully inflated the tympanic membrane via the Valsalva test, and 23.5% (16 ears) failed. Conversely, the Popper test resulted in an 88.2% (60 ears) success rate for inflating the tympanic membrane, with only 11.8% (8 ears) failing.
Conclusion
Variability observed in the Valsalva test outcomes may be attributed to individual differences and the instructor’s technique. MEID, as utilized in the Popper test, offers a promising alternative to the Valsalva test, potentially enhancing the reliability by minimizing individual variation. However, the diagnostic performance may be dependent on the properties of the MEID.
4.Evaluation of the Popper Test as an Alternative to the Valsalva Maneuver for Assessing Eustachian Tube Function
Dae Hyun KIM ; Moon Su KWAK ; Ju Ha PARK ; Seong Hoon BAE
Korean Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 2025;68(2):58-61
Background and Objectives:
The Valsalva test, although commonly utilized to assess the Eustachian tube function, is limited by drawbacks such as inconsistent pressure increases in the nasal cavity. Thus we introduced the “Popper test,” a tympanic membrane inflation test using the automatic middle ear inflation device known as middle ear inflation device (MEID), to explore its viability as an alternative to the Valsalva test.Subjects and Method We sampled 80 ears from patients between June 1, 2023, and August 1, 2023. Each patient underwent both the Valsalva and Popper tests using the MEID. Participants were divided into three categories: the “unable” group (patients who could not follow the Valsalva maneuver) and the “successful” and “unsuccessful” groups (patients whose attempts at the Valsalva or Popper tests either successed or failed). Success or failure was determined using an otoscope to assess the bulging of the tympanic membrane.
Results:
Of the 68 ears with normal middle ear pressure, 30.9% (21 ears) showed an inability to perform the Valsalva test, 45.6% (31 ears) successfully inflated the tympanic membrane via the Valsalva test, and 23.5% (16 ears) failed. Conversely, the Popper test resulted in an 88.2% (60 ears) success rate for inflating the tympanic membrane, with only 11.8% (8 ears) failing.
Conclusion
Variability observed in the Valsalva test outcomes may be attributed to individual differences and the instructor’s technique. MEID, as utilized in the Popper test, offers a promising alternative to the Valsalva test, potentially enhancing the reliability by minimizing individual variation. However, the diagnostic performance may be dependent on the properties of the MEID.
5.Re-do laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for recurrent common bile duct stones: a single-center retrospective cohort study
In Ho LEE ; Seung Jae LEE ; Ju Ik MOON ; Sang Eok LEE ; Nak Song SUNG ; Seong Uk KWON ; In Eui BAE ; Seung Jae RHO ; Sung Gon KIM ; Min Kyu KIM ; Dae Sung YOON ; Won Jun CHOI ; In Seok CHOI
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2025;108(5):310-316
Purpose:
Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones.
Methods:
This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded.
Results:
Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057).
Conclusion
Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.
6.Evaluation of the Popper Test as an Alternative to the Valsalva Maneuver for Assessing Eustachian Tube Function
Dae Hyun KIM ; Moon Su KWAK ; Ju Ha PARK ; Seong Hoon BAE
Korean Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 2025;68(2):58-61
Background and Objectives:
The Valsalva test, although commonly utilized to assess the Eustachian tube function, is limited by drawbacks such as inconsistent pressure increases in the nasal cavity. Thus we introduced the “Popper test,” a tympanic membrane inflation test using the automatic middle ear inflation device known as middle ear inflation device (MEID), to explore its viability as an alternative to the Valsalva test.Subjects and Method We sampled 80 ears from patients between June 1, 2023, and August 1, 2023. Each patient underwent both the Valsalva and Popper tests using the MEID. Participants were divided into three categories: the “unable” group (patients who could not follow the Valsalva maneuver) and the “successful” and “unsuccessful” groups (patients whose attempts at the Valsalva or Popper tests either successed or failed). Success or failure was determined using an otoscope to assess the bulging of the tympanic membrane.
Results:
Of the 68 ears with normal middle ear pressure, 30.9% (21 ears) showed an inability to perform the Valsalva test, 45.6% (31 ears) successfully inflated the tympanic membrane via the Valsalva test, and 23.5% (16 ears) failed. Conversely, the Popper test resulted in an 88.2% (60 ears) success rate for inflating the tympanic membrane, with only 11.8% (8 ears) failing.
Conclusion
Variability observed in the Valsalva test outcomes may be attributed to individual differences and the instructor’s technique. MEID, as utilized in the Popper test, offers a promising alternative to the Valsalva test, potentially enhancing the reliability by minimizing individual variation. However, the diagnostic performance may be dependent on the properties of the MEID.
7.Evaluation of the Popper Test as an Alternative to the Valsalva Maneuver for Assessing Eustachian Tube Function
Dae Hyun KIM ; Moon Su KWAK ; Ju Ha PARK ; Seong Hoon BAE
Korean Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 2025;68(2):58-61
Background and Objectives:
The Valsalva test, although commonly utilized to assess the Eustachian tube function, is limited by drawbacks such as inconsistent pressure increases in the nasal cavity. Thus we introduced the “Popper test,” a tympanic membrane inflation test using the automatic middle ear inflation device known as middle ear inflation device (MEID), to explore its viability as an alternative to the Valsalva test.Subjects and Method We sampled 80 ears from patients between June 1, 2023, and August 1, 2023. Each patient underwent both the Valsalva and Popper tests using the MEID. Participants were divided into three categories: the “unable” group (patients who could not follow the Valsalva maneuver) and the “successful” and “unsuccessful” groups (patients whose attempts at the Valsalva or Popper tests either successed or failed). Success or failure was determined using an otoscope to assess the bulging of the tympanic membrane.
Results:
Of the 68 ears with normal middle ear pressure, 30.9% (21 ears) showed an inability to perform the Valsalva test, 45.6% (31 ears) successfully inflated the tympanic membrane via the Valsalva test, and 23.5% (16 ears) failed. Conversely, the Popper test resulted in an 88.2% (60 ears) success rate for inflating the tympanic membrane, with only 11.8% (8 ears) failing.
Conclusion
Variability observed in the Valsalva test outcomes may be attributed to individual differences and the instructor’s technique. MEID, as utilized in the Popper test, offers a promising alternative to the Valsalva test, potentially enhancing the reliability by minimizing individual variation. However, the diagnostic performance may be dependent on the properties of the MEID.
8.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
9.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
10.Re-do laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for recurrent common bile duct stones: a single-center retrospective cohort study
In Ho LEE ; Seung Jae LEE ; Ju Ik MOON ; Sang Eok LEE ; Nak Song SUNG ; Seong Uk KWON ; In Eui BAE ; Seung Jae RHO ; Sung Gon KIM ; Min Kyu KIM ; Dae Sung YOON ; Won Jun CHOI ; In Seok CHOI
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2025;108(5):310-316
Purpose:
Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones.
Methods:
This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded.
Results:
Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057).
Conclusion
Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail