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.

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are among the most serious and common complications of diabetes mellitus. They significantly affect patients’ quality of life and impose a substantial economic burden on healthcare systems worldwide. In Korea, the prevalence of diabetes and related complications, such as DFUs, has been increasing, reflecting a broader global trend. DFUs are associated with severe complications, including infections, neuropathy, and peripheral arterial disease, often leading to amputation. In Korea, diabetic foot complications are a major cause of non-traumatic lower-extremity amputations, with high mortality rates following amputation. DFUs also significantly reduce patients’ quality of life and increase healthcare costs. The management of DFUs requires a multidisciplinary approach that integrates medical, surgical, and advanced therapeutic interventions to prevent severe outcomes, such as amputation. This comprehensive review of DFU management in patients with diabetes was developed in collaboration with the Diabetic Study Group of the Korean Diabetes Association and Korean Society for Diabetic Foot. This review examines the epidemiology, clinical significance, diagnosis, and evidence-based treatment of DFUs.

Purpose: Although gastric cancer (GC) exhibits significant genomic heterogeneity, the clinical implications of its immune microenvironment remain poorly understood. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with GC who underwent gastrectomies between 2011 and 2014. The tumors were analyzed for Epstein–Barr virus (EBV), microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H), tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (CD3), tumor-associated macrophages (CD68 and CD163), and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Tumors were classified using the modified The Cancer Genome Atlas scheme, and their clinical characteristics were compared. Results: A total of 567 patients were classified into EBV (6%), MSI-H (10%), chromosomal instability-like (36%), and genomically stable-like (48%) subtypes. EBV tumors exhibited the highest PD-L1 expression (85%) and immune infiltration by CD3+ T cells (86%), CD68+ macrophages (58%), and CD163+ macrophages (40%). High CD68+ macrophage tumors were associated with advanced stages and worse 5-year disease-free survival (83% vs. 95%; P<0.001);however, this association was not independently significant after adjusting for the tumor-nodemetastasis stage. PD-L1 expression did not significantly affect the survival outcomes. Conclusions GC subtypes have distinct immune microenvironments that influence prognosis. Our findings highlight the prognostic and therapeutic potential of immune profiling in GC.

Purpose: Due to its rarity, treatment guidelines for appendiceal cancer have traditionally followed those established for colorectal cancer, despite showing distinct histologic and clinical features. This study aimed to compare the clinicopathologic characteristics and long-term oncologic outcomes of appendiceal cancer with those of right-sided colon cancers. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients with stage I–III appendiceal, cecal, or ascending colon cancer who underwent curative resection between 2010 and 2020 at our center. A 1:3:3 exact matching for age, sex, TNM stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy was performed. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. Results: Overall, 245 patients with appendiceal cancer (n = 35), ascending colon cancer (n = 105), and cecal cancer (n = 105) were analyzed. Appendiceal cancer exhibited a higher proportion of T4 tumors and fewer harvested lymph nodes compared with ascending or cecal cancers. The mean follow-up duration was 9.5 years. The 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were lower in appendiceal cancer (66.2% and 52.9%) than in ascending (91.2% and 78.4%) or cecal cancer (88.5% and 78.3%). Similarly, the 10-year disease-free survival rate was lower in appendiceal cancer (59.2%) compared with ascending (83.1%) and cecal cancers (78.4%). Cox regression analysis identified age (≥65 years), perforation, nodal metastasis, and lymphovascular invasion as independent predictors of poor prognosis. Conclusion Appendiceal cancer exhibited significantly worse long-term survival compared to cecal or ascending colon cancer. Tumor perforation, nodal metastasis, and lymphovascular invasion were adverse prognostic factors for overall and disease-free survival.

Purpose: We investigated the clinical features, current negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) management strategies, and outcomes of pelvic-perineal soft tissue infection after open pelvic fractures. Materials and Methods: We analyzed the data of patients admitted to our trauma center with pelvic-perineal soft tissue after open pelvic fractures over a 7-year period. We investigated the injury severity score (ISS), medical costs, number of NPWTs, time required to reach definite wound coverage, complications, fracture classifications, transfusion requirements, interventions, length of stay (LOS) in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU), and prognosis. Results: Twenty patients with open pelvic fractures were treated with NPWT, and one patient who underwent NPWT died of pelvic sepsis during ICU treatment. The median LOS in hospital and medical costs were 98 [56–164] days and 106400 [65600–171100] USD, respectively. Patients treated with instillation NPWT (iNPWT, n=10) had a shorter NPWT duration (24 [13–39] vs. 46 [42–91] days, p=0.023), time to definite wound coverage (30 [21–43] vs. 49 [42–93] days, p=0.026), and hospital LOS (56 [43–72] vs. 158 [101–192] days, p=0.001), as well as lower medical costs (67800 [42500–102500] vs. 144200 [110400–236000] USD, p=0.009) compared to those treated with conventional NPWT. Conclusion NPWT is a feasible method for treating pelvic soft tissue infections in patients with open pelvic fractures. iNPWT can reduce the duration of NPWT, hospital LOS, and medical costs.

Purpose: Despite the widespread use of liquid skin adhesives (LSA), concerns persist regarding the increase in wound care costs. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LSA for surgical wound management. Methods: In this prospective, open-label, single-center randomized controlled trial, adults aged 19 years and older who were scheduled for elective minimally invasive colorectal surgeries were included. The participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: an n-butyl cyanoacrylate skin adhesive was used in the experimental group (LSA group), while a surgical skin stapler was employed in the control group (stapler group). The primary outcome measure was the sum of the total time required for wound management. Results: A total of 58 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups, with 29 patients in each group. The findings revealed comparable wound complication rates in the 2 groups (8 out of 29 in the LSA group vs. 5 out of 29 in the stapler group, P = 0.530). Notably, the LSA group had a significantly shorter wound management time (median 235 seconds vs. 1,201 seconds, P < 0.001) and similar wound management cost (median US dollar [USD] 50.6 vs. USD 54.6, P = 0.529) compared to the stapler group. Subgroup analysis showed that the LSA group had a shorter management time for uncomplicated wounds and a lower cost for complicated wounds. Conclusion LSA not only provides a safe alternative but also offers a resource-efficient option for wound management compared to staplers.

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.

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.

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in South Korea, imposing substantial physical, emotional, and financial burdens on patients and society. Despite the high burden of symptom and complex care needs of HF patients, palliative care and hospice services remain underutilized in South Korea due to cultural, institutional, and knowledge-related barriers. This position statement from the Korean Society of Heart Failure emphasizes the need for integrating palliative and hospice care into HF management to improve quality of life and support holistic care for patients and their families. By clarifying the role of palliative care in HF and proposing practical referral criteria, this position statement aims to bridge the gap between HF and palliative care services in South Korea, ultimately improving patient-centered outcomes and aligning treatment with the goals and values of HF patients.

Purpose: Despite the widespread use of liquid skin adhesives (LSA), concerns persist regarding the increase in wound care costs. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LSA for surgical wound management. Methods: In this prospective, open-label, single-center randomized controlled trial, adults aged 19 years and older who were scheduled for elective minimally invasive colorectal surgeries were included. The participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: an n-butyl cyanoacrylate skin adhesive was used in the experimental group (LSA group), while a surgical skin stapler was employed in the control group (stapler group). The primary outcome measure was the sum of the total time required for wound management. Results: A total of 58 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups, with 29 patients in each group. The findings revealed comparable wound complication rates in the 2 groups (8 out of 29 in the LSA group vs. 5 out of 29 in the stapler group, P = 0.530). Notably, the LSA group had a significantly shorter wound management time (median 235 seconds vs. 1,201 seconds, P < 0.001) and similar wound management cost (median US dollar [USD] 50.6 vs. USD 54.6, P = 0.529) compared to the stapler group. Subgroup analysis showed that the LSA group had a shorter management time for uncomplicated wounds and a lower cost for complicated wounds. Conclusion LSA not only provides a safe alternative but also offers a resource-efficient option for wound management compared to staplers.