Neuropathic pain markedly impairs quality of life and imposes a substantial socioeconomic burden, while available treatments often provide only partial relief and are limited by safety concerns. The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain (NeuPSIG-IASP) first published pharmacologic recommendations in 2007, followed by a major update in 2015 and a new guideline in 2025. This narrative review specifically compares the 2015 and 2025 NeuPSIG-IASP guidelines, outlining key methodological changes and therapeutic shifts. The 2025 guideline is based on a larger, more rigorous meta-analysis, maintains α2δ-ligands (adds mirogabalin), serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants as first-line drugs, downgrades tramadol into the opioid third-line group. It also introduces high-frequency motor-cortex repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as a weakly recommended third-line option and discusses implications for Korean clinical practice.

In forensic medicine, age estimation commonly involves assessing age-related changes in teeth and skeletal structures. Vertebral morphological alterations, such as osteophyte formation, serve as age indicators. Recent studies using deep-learning techniques, such as neural networks, for age estimation from radiographic images have been conducted, reporting significantly higher accuracy than previous studies. This study aimed to estimate age using neural network-based deep-learning techniques applied to computed tomography (CT) cross-sectional images of the spine and evaluate its feasibility. Postmortem CT scans of 214 cadavers with varying decomposition levels were used. Coronal and sagittal cross-sectional images penetrating the center of each vertebral body were extracted for the 11th and 12th thoracic vertebrae and the first to fifth lumbar vertebrae. Using these images, along with the chronological ages of deceased individuals, an age estimation model was developed through regression analysis in PyTorch, employing a convolutional neural networks architecture with five-fold cross-validation. The model achieved a mean absolute error of 5.385 years, root mean squared error of 7.029 years, and coefficient of determination of 0.793. Although the sample size was relatively small, the results suggested the potential applicability of vertebral imagingbased age estimation in the Korean population. Further research using a larger dataset may improve the accuracy and reliability of the model.

Background and Objectives: Clinical characteristics and outcomes in acute heart failure (AHF) vary by phenotype. We assessed phenotype-specific features, treatment patterns, and outcomes in a nationwide Korean cohort. Methods: The Korean Heart Failure III registry prospectively enrolled 7,351 AHF admissions at 47 hospitals. Among 6,777 patients with available left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), phenotypes were defined as heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF, ≤40%), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF,41–49%), or preserved EF (HFpEF, ≥50%). The primary endpoint was a 12-month composite of all-cause death or heart transplantation, evaluated from index admission and, among hospital survivors, from discharge. We used inverse probability weighting (multinomial generalized boosted models with stabilized, trimmed weights) and weighted Cox proportional-hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). Results: Phenotype distribution was 58.9% HFrEF, 13.6% HFmrEF, and 27.5% HFpEF. Crude 12-month composite rates from index admission were 13.4% (HFrEF), 12.7% (HFmrEF), and 16.8% (HFpEF). After weighting, from index admission, HFmrEF (HR, 0.892; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.731–1.088) and HFpEF (HR, 1.101; 95% CI, 0.939–1.291) did not differ from HFrEF; from discharge, HFpEF had modestly higher risk (HR, 1.207; 95% CI, 1.008–1.445) whereas HFmrEF did not (HR, 1.039; 95% CI, 0.844–1.279). Hyponatremia and chronic kidney disease were consistent adverse markers, while angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/ angiotensin II receptor blocker use at discharge was protective. Conclusions Across the EF spectrum, phenotypes showed distinct profiles and risk. Postdischarge risk was modestly higher in HFpEF, supporting phenotype-tailored care and systematic discharge optimization in Korean patients with AHF.

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of impacted teeth (ITs) in orthodontic patients at university dental hospitals in Korea. Methods: This study included 14,774 patients who visited the Department of Orthodontics at 10 university dental hospitals in Korea between 2020 and 2022 and underwent orthodontic diagnosis. The prevalence and characteristics of ITs were investigated using orthodontic diagnostic records, radiographs, and diagnostic casts. Results: The prevalence of ITs, excluding third molar impaction, in Korean orthodontic patients was 13.6% (n = 2,014).The prevalence of ITs in pediatric orthodontic patients was 24.5% (n = 1,614).Of these patients, 68.2% had one IT, 27.5% had two ITs, 24.3% had bilateral IT, and 75.7% had unilateral IT. The most frequent IT was the maxillary canine (50.1%), followed by the mandibular second molar (11.7%), and maxillary second premolar (9.6%). An abnormal eruption path (46.5%) was the most frequent etiology. Orthodontic traction after surgical exposure (70.6%) was the most frequent treatment option. Among the patients with ITs, 29.8% had other dental anomalies, such as tooth agenesis (8.7%), microdontia (8.0%), and supernumerary teeth (5.1%). Furthermore, 50.8% had complications such as cystic lesions (18.3%), transposition (17.7%), and root resorption (14.8%).Among the patients with maxillary canine impaction, 62.2% had labial maxillary canine impaction and 21.1% had palatal maxillary canine impaction. Conclusions The prevalence of ITs in Korean orthodontic patients at university dental hospitals was high, particularly in pediatric orthodontic patients.

Background: Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is crucial in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing coronary interventions. Previous studies suggest that high-dose statins may aid in CIN prevention, yet comparative studies among different statin types using cystatin C (cysC) as a biomarker for CIN are absent. This study evaluated the effectiveness of high-dose rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in preventing cysC-based CIN (cysC-CIN) in AMI patients. Methods: This multicenter registry included 431 patients (rosuvastatin 20 mg: n = 231, atorvastatin 40 mg: n = 200). The primary endpoint was cysC-CIN incidence within 48 hours post contrast; the secondary endpoints were creatinine-based CIN (cr-CIN) incidence within 72 hours post contrast and post 30 days adverse events. Results: The incidences of cysC-CIN (12.1% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.103) and cr-CIN (6.2% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.103) were higher in the atorvastatin group without significant statistical differences.Multivariable regression analysis, which was adjusted for CIN risk factors and the variables with univariate association, showed no increased odds ratio (OR) (OR, 2.185; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.899, 5.315; P = 0.085) for cysC-CIN in the atorvastatin group compared to the rosuvastatin group. However, statin-naïve atorvastatin subgroup had significantly increased odds of cysC-CIN compared to the rosuvastatin group (OR, 2.977; 95% CI, 1.057, 8.378; P = 0.039). At post 30 days renal, cardiovascular, and mortality event rates were both low and similar between the two groups. Conclusion No significant difference in cysC-CIN incidence was found between the highdose rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups in AMI patients and cysC was more sensitive to the early detection of CIN than creatinine.

Background: Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is crucial in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing coronary interventions. Previous studies suggest that high-dose statins may aid in CIN prevention, yet comparative studies among different statin types using cystatin C (cysC) as a biomarker for CIN are absent. This study evaluated the effectiveness of high-dose rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in preventing cysC-based CIN (cysC-CIN) in AMI patients. Methods: This multicenter registry included 431 patients (rosuvastatin 20 mg: n = 231, atorvastatin 40 mg: n = 200). The primary endpoint was cysC-CIN incidence within 48 hours post contrast; the secondary endpoints were creatinine-based CIN (cr-CIN) incidence within 72 hours post contrast and post 30 days adverse events. Results: The incidences of cysC-CIN (12.1% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.103) and cr-CIN (6.2% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.103) were higher in the atorvastatin group without significant statistical differences.Multivariable regression analysis, which was adjusted for CIN risk factors and the variables with univariate association, showed no increased odds ratio (OR) (OR, 2.185; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.899, 5.315; P = 0.085) for cysC-CIN in the atorvastatin group compared to the rosuvastatin group. However, statin-naïve atorvastatin subgroup had significantly increased odds of cysC-CIN compared to the rosuvastatin group (OR, 2.977; 95% CI, 1.057, 8.378; P = 0.039). At post 30 days renal, cardiovascular, and mortality event rates were both low and similar between the two groups. Conclusion No significant difference in cysC-CIN incidence was found between the highdose rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups in AMI patients and cysC was more sensitive to the early detection of CIN than creatinine.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Background: and Purpose Previous research on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has shown a 0.5% incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) requiring blood transfusion during hospitalization. The existing literature has insufficiently explored the long-term incidence in this population despite the decremental impact of GIB on stroke outcomes. Methods: We analyzed the data from a cohort of patients with AIS admitted to 14 hospitals as part of a nationwide multicenter prospective stroke registry between 2011 and 2013. These patients were followed up for up to 6 years. The occurrence of major GIB events, defined as GIB necessitating at least two units of blood transfusion, was tracked using the National Health Insurance Service claims data. Results: Among 10,818 patients with AIS (male, 59%; mean age, 68±13 years), 947 (8.8%) experienced 1,224 episodes of major GIB over a median follow-up duration of 3.1 years. Remarkably, 20% of 947 patients experienced multiple episodes of major GIB. The incidence peaked in the first month after AIS, reaching 19.2 per 100 person-years, and gradually decreased to approximately one-sixth of this rate by the 2nd year with subsequent stabilization. Multivariable analysis identified the following predictors of major GIB: anemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of ≥4. Conclusion Patients with AIS are susceptible to major GIB, particularly in the first month after the onset of AIS, with the risk decreasing thereafter. Implementing preventive strategies may be important, especially for patients with anemia and impaired renal function at stroke onset and those with a disabling stroke.

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of impacted teeth (ITs) in orthodontic patients at university dental hospitals in Korea. Methods: This study included 14,774 patients who visited the Department of Orthodontics at 10 university dental hospitals in Korea between 2020 and 2022 and underwent orthodontic diagnosis. The prevalence and characteristics of ITs were investigated using orthodontic diagnostic records, radiographs, and diagnostic casts. Results: The prevalence of ITs, excluding third molar impaction, in Korean orthodontic patients was 13.6% (n = 2,014).The prevalence of ITs in pediatric orthodontic patients was 24.5% (n = 1,614).Of these patients, 68.2% had one IT, 27.5% had two ITs, 24.3% had bilateral IT, and 75.7% had unilateral IT. The most frequent IT was the maxillary canine (50.1%), followed by the mandibular second molar (11.7%), and maxillary second premolar (9.6%). An abnormal eruption path (46.5%) was the most frequent etiology. Orthodontic traction after surgical exposure (70.6%) was the most frequent treatment option. Among the patients with ITs, 29.8% had other dental anomalies, such as tooth agenesis (8.7%), microdontia (8.0%), and supernumerary teeth (5.1%). Furthermore, 50.8% had complications such as cystic lesions (18.3%), transposition (17.7%), and root resorption (14.8%).Among the patients with maxillary canine impaction, 62.2% had labial maxillary canine impaction and 21.1% had palatal maxillary canine impaction. Conclusions The prevalence of ITs in Korean orthodontic patients at university dental hospitals was high, particularly in pediatric orthodontic patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.