Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of coil embolization of venous segments in patients with Type IIa pelvic arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was performed on 13 patients (median age, 43 years, range 20–62 years, 7 males) who underwent transvenous coil embolization for Type IIa pelvic AVM (characterized by multiple arterioles shunting to focal venous segments of a single draining vein) without the use of additional liquid embolic agents from March 2017 to February 2023. Treatment outcomes were analyzed based on clinical evaluations, post angiography findings, and follow-up CT. Results: Fourteen procedures were performed on 13 patients. Except in one patient, all treatments were completed in a single session. Transvenous access was employed in 10 procedures, whereas direct puncture was used in four sessions. The embolization procedures used an average of 55.7 ± 58.5 coils (range, 7–238) and lasted an average of 127.3 ± 39.5 minutes.The technical success rate was 92.9% (of 13/14). All patients reported symptom improvement. Follow-up CT scans showed complete occlusion of the AVM without recurrence in ten of the 13 patients. There was one minor adverse event: a small retroperitoneal hemorrhage, likely related to direct puncture, which resolved spontaneously. No other adverse events were observed. Conclusion Coil embolization of the draining vein segment, without the use of additional liquid embolic agents is a safe and effective method for managing Type IIa pelvic AVM.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of coil embolization of venous segments in patients with Type IIa pelvic arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was performed on 13 patients (median age, 43 years, range 20–62 years, 7 males) who underwent transvenous coil embolization for Type IIa pelvic AVM (characterized by multiple arterioles shunting to focal venous segments of a single draining vein) without the use of additional liquid embolic agents from March 2017 to February 2023. Treatment outcomes were analyzed based on clinical evaluations, post angiography findings, and follow-up CT. Results: Fourteen procedures were performed on 13 patients. Except in one patient, all treatments were completed in a single session. Transvenous access was employed in 10 procedures, whereas direct puncture was used in four sessions. The embolization procedures used an average of 55.7 ± 58.5 coils (range, 7–238) and lasted an average of 127.3 ± 39.5 minutes.The technical success rate was 92.9% (of 13/14). All patients reported symptom improvement. Follow-up CT scans showed complete occlusion of the AVM without recurrence in ten of the 13 patients. There was one minor adverse event: a small retroperitoneal hemorrhage, likely related to direct puncture, which resolved spontaneously. No other adverse events were observed. Conclusion Coil embolization of the draining vein segment, without the use of additional liquid embolic agents is a safe and effective method for managing Type IIa pelvic AVM.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of coil embolization of venous segments in patients with Type IIa pelvic arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was performed on 13 patients (median age, 43 years, range 20–62 years, 7 males) who underwent transvenous coil embolization for Type IIa pelvic AVM (characterized by multiple arterioles shunting to focal venous segments of a single draining vein) without the use of additional liquid embolic agents from March 2017 to February 2023. Treatment outcomes were analyzed based on clinical evaluations, post angiography findings, and follow-up CT. Results: Fourteen procedures were performed on 13 patients. Except in one patient, all treatments were completed in a single session. Transvenous access was employed in 10 procedures, whereas direct puncture was used in four sessions. The embolization procedures used an average of 55.7 ± 58.5 coils (range, 7–238) and lasted an average of 127.3 ± 39.5 minutes.The technical success rate was 92.9% (of 13/14). All patients reported symptom improvement. Follow-up CT scans showed complete occlusion of the AVM without recurrence in ten of the 13 patients. There was one minor adverse event: a small retroperitoneal hemorrhage, likely related to direct puncture, which resolved spontaneously. No other adverse events were observed. Conclusion Coil embolization of the draining vein segment, without the use of additional liquid embolic agents is a safe and effective method for managing Type IIa pelvic AVM.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.