Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic, disabling, and functional bowel disorder that significantly affects social functioning and reduces quality of life and increases social costs. The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility published clinical practice guidelines on the management of IBS based on a systematic review of the literature in 2017, and planned to revise these guidelines in light of new evidence on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of IBS. The current revised version of the guidelines is consistent with the previous version and targets adults diagnosed with or suspected of having IBS. These guidelines were developed using a combination of de novo and adaptation methods, with analyses of existing guidelines and discussions within the committee, leading to the identification of key clinical questions. Finally, the guidelines consisted of 22 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and risk factors of IBS, 4 regarding diagnostic modalities and strategies, 2 regarding general management, and 13 regarding medical treatment. For each statement, the advantages, disadvantages, and precautions were thoroughly detailed. The modified Delphi method was used to achieve expert consensus to adopt the core recommendations of the guidelines. These guidelines serve as a reference for clinicians (including primary care physicians, general healthcare providers, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients, helping them to make informed decisions regarding IBS management.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic, disabling, and functional bowel disorder that significantly affects social functioning and reduces quality of life and increases social costs. The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility published clinical practice guidelines on the management of IBS based on a systematic review of the literature in 2017, and planned to revise these guidelines in light of new evidence on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of IBS. The current revised version of the guidelines is consistent with the previous version and targets adults diagnosed with or suspected of having IBS. These guidelines were developed using a combination of de novo and adaptation methods, with analyses of existing guidelines and discussions within the committee, leading to the identification of key clinical questions. Finally, the guidelines consisted of 22 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and risk factors of IBS, 4 regarding diagnostic modalities and strategies, 2 regarding general management, and 13 regarding medical treatment. For each statement, the advantages, disadvantages, and precautions were thoroughly detailed. The modified Delphi method was used to achieve expert consensus to adopt the core recommendations of the guidelines. These guidelines serve as a reference for clinicians (including primary care physicians, general healthcare providers, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients, helping them to make informed decisions regarding IBS management.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic, disabling, and functional bowel disorder that significantly affects social functioning and reduces quality of life and increases social costs. The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility published clinical practice guidelines on the management of IBS based on a systematic review of the literature in 2017, and planned to revise these guidelines in light of new evidence on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of IBS. The current revised version of the guidelines is consistent with the previous version and targets adults diagnosed with or suspected of having IBS. These guidelines were developed using a combination of de novo and adaptation methods, with analyses of existing guidelines and discussions within the committee, leading to the identification of key clinical questions. Finally, the guidelines consisted of 22 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and risk factors of IBS, 4 regarding diagnostic modalities and strategies, 2 regarding general management, and 13 regarding medical treatment. For each statement, the advantages, disadvantages, and precautions were thoroughly detailed. The modified Delphi method was used to achieve expert consensus to adopt the core recommendations of the guidelines. These guidelines serve as a reference for clinicians (including primary care physicians, general healthcare providers, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients, helping them to make informed decisions regarding IBS management.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a significant complication of achondroplasia, often requiring surgical intervention. Traditional open decompression has been the standard treatment, but minimally invasive techniques, such as endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD), offer advantages in select cases. This case report describes a 48-year-old man with achondroplasia who presented with severe neurogenic claudication and lower extremity weakness due to multilevel LSS. A staged endoscopic ULBD approach was performed, initially addressing L2–3 and L4–5, followed by the remaining levels one week later. During the second operation, a delayed dural tear was discovered at the previously operated L2–3 level and successfully managed with a dural sealing matrix. Postoperatively, the patient demonstrated significant pain relief and functional improvement. This case highlights the feasibility and benefits of staged endoscopic ULBD in achondroplasia patients with multilevel LSS, as it enabled effective decompression while minimizing structural disruption.

Patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and double crush syndrome often require decompression of the nerve root at multiple levels. Traditional approaches are limited by the need for extensive bony resection and the risk of iatrogenic instability. The endoscopic contralateral approach offers a minimally invasive alternative, but has primarily been applied to single-level decompressions. This study evaluated the feasibility of an "extended" biportal endoscopic contralateral approach for 2-level decompression in a patient with double crush syndrome, detailing the surgical technique and outcomes. A 69-year-old female patient presented with bilateral leg pain and numbness attributed to severe stenosis at L4–5 and L5–S1. The patient underwent a single biportal endoscopic procedure utilizing an extended contralateral approach to decompress the L4–5 central canal, lateral recess, and the L5–S1 foramen. The technique involved careful planning of incision placement, sublaminar drilling, and decompression of the L5 nerve root across both levels. The second illustrative case is a patient with L4 double crush syndrome who was managed similarly. Postoperative imaging demonstrated successful decompression of the L4–5 central canal and L5–S1 foramen, with preservation of the L5 pars interarticularis. The patient experienced complete symptom resolution. The approach resulted in minimal soft tissue dissection and bony preservation, enhancing surgical efficiency. The extended biportal endoscopic contralateral approach effectively addresses double crush root syndrome through a single minimally invasive approach. This technique improves operating room efficiency, while still achieving good neural decompression without causing iatrogenic instability, and may be a viable surgical option for selected cases.

This study aims to demonstrate the surgical technique of inserting a larger cage, typically used in the oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) approach, through the unilateral biportal endoscopic trans-Kambin triangle lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-KLIF) method to maximize the cage footprint and increase fusion rates with minimal tissue disruption. UBE-KLIF is a minimally invasive alternative to traditional open and other fusion methods, and it is particularly suitable for patients without central spinal stenosis where decompression is unnecessary. In this case, a 68-year-old woman with L4–5 spondylolisthesis and instability, presenting with low back pain radiating to her left lower limb, was treated using the UBE-KLIF approach. A large OLIF cage (50 mm×18 mm×10 mm) was successfully inserted, achieving an endplate-to-cage footprint ratio of 46.8%. The procedure minimized tissue disruption while enabling the use of a larger cage, which could potentially improve the fusion rate. This technique demonstrates the feasibility and effectiveness of inserting a larger OLIF cage via the UBE-KLIF approach in patients without central stenosis, offering a promising minimally invasive option for improving fusion outcomes.

The introduction of endoscopic spine surgery has led to a paradigm shift in the treatment of spinal disorders. In particular, biportal endoscopic surgery has gained traction for its wider visual field and improved the maneuverability of instruments, familiar anatomy, and costeffectiveness. In this study, we describe our en bloc removal of the ligamentum flavum using a “butterfly” technique. This approach had several advantages: (1) The flavum serves as a protective barrier for the dura during drilling. (2) There is less epidural bleeding, which provides (3) better visualization. (4) In an inadvertent durotomy, this usually occurs later in the procedure, which is more manageable than the early stages of decompression. Biportal decompression for spinal stenosis can be performed using an en bloc ligamentum flavum removal technique that is safe, reproducible, and efficient. A systematic approach will help early adopters overcome the steep learning curve.

Background/Aims: Prokinetic agents and neuromodulators are among the treatment options for functional dyspepsia (FD), but their comparative efficacy is unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy of mosapride controlled-release (CR) and nortriptyline in patients with FD after 4 weeks of treatment. Methods: Participants with FD were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive mosapride CR (mosapride CR 15 mg and nortriptyline placebo) or nortriptyline (mosapride CR placebo and nortriptyline 10 mg) in double-placebo, double-blinded, randomized controlled, parallel clinical study. The primary endpoint was defined as the proportion of patients with overall dyspepsia improvement after 4 weeks treatment. The secondary endpoints were changes in individual symptom scores, anxiety, depression, and quality of life. Results: One hundred nine participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility, and 54 in the mosapride CR group and 50 in the nortriptyline group were included in the modified intention-to-treat protocol. The rate of overall dyspepsia improvement was similar between groups (53.7% vs 54.0%, P = 0.976). There was no difference in the efficacy of mosapride CR and nortriptyline in a subgroup analysis by FD subtype (59.3% vs 52.5% in postprandial distress syndrome, P = 0.615; 44.4% vs 40.0% in epigastric pain syndrome, P = > 0.999; 50.0% vs 59.1% in overlap, P = 0.565; respectively). Both treatments significantly improved anxiety, depression, and quality of life from baseline. Conclusion Mosapride CR and nortriptyline showed similar efficacy in patients with FD regardless of the subtype. Both treatments could be equally helpful for improving quality of life and psychological well-being while also relieving dyspepsia.

In recent years, significant translational research advances have been made in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) research field. Endoscopic evaluation is a reasonable option for acquiring upper GI tissue for research purposes because it has minimal risk and can be applied to unresectable gastric cancer. The optimal number of biopsy samples and sample storage is crucial and might influence results. Furthermore, the methods for sample acquisition can be applied differently according to the research purpose; however, there have been few reports on methods for sample collection from endoscopic biopsies. In this review, we suggested a protocol for collecting study samples for upper GI research, including microbiome, DNA, RNA, protein, single-cell RNA sequencing, and organoid culture, through a comprehensive literature review. For microbiome analysis, one or two pieces of biopsied material obtained using standard endoscopic forceps may be sufficient. Additionally, 5 mL of gastric fluid and 3–4 mL of saliva is recommended for microbiome analyses. At least one gastric biopsy tissue is necessary for most DNA or RNA analyses, while proteomics analysis may require at least 2–3 biopsy tissues. Single cell-RNA sequencing requires at least 3–5 tissues and additional 1–2 tissues, if possible. For successful organoid culture, multiple sampling is necessary to improve the quality of specimens.

Background/Aims: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common chronic gastrointestinal disorder that typically requires long-term maintenance therapy. However, little is known about patient preferences and satisfaction and real-world prescription patterns regarding maintenance therapy for GERD. Methods: This observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study involved patients from 18 referral hospitals in Korea. We surveyed patients who had been prescribed proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for GERD for at least 90 days with a minimum follow-up duration of 1 year. The main outcome was overall patient satisfaction with different maintenance therapy modalities. Results: A total of 197 patients were enrolled. Overall patient satisfaction, patient preferences, and GERD health-related quality of life scores did not significantly differ among the maintenance therapy modality groups. However, the on-demand therapy group experienced a significantly longer disease duration than the continuous therapy group. The continuous therapy group demonstrated a lower level of awareness of potential adverse effects associated with PPIs than the on-demand therapy group but received higher doses of PPIs than the on-demand therapy group. The prescribed doses of PPIs also varied based on the phenotype of GERD, with higher doses prescribed for non-erosive reflux disease than erosive reflux disease. Conclusion Although overall patient satisfaction did not significantly differ among the different PPI maintenance therapy modality groups, awareness of potential adverse effects was significantly different between the on-demand and continuous therapy groups.