Introduction: The 2021 IDF-DAR risk calculator had been previously evaluated in multiple studies and subsequently widely accepted and applied in clinical practice as a practical standardized tool for patient risk stratification. Recently updated, the 2026 IDF-DAR Risk calculator enables a more individualized, evidence-related evaluation of patientrelated and disease-related risk factors, incorporating modern diabetes technologies, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, and advanced insulin formulations to enhance risk stratification. This tool allows medical professionals to tailor Ramadan practices based on overall factors toward promoting safe fasting. Methodology: This prospective multicentre observational study recruited adults with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes attending public hospitals nationwide. People with diabetes (PwD) intending to perform Ramadan fasting were invited to participate and assessed using the 2026 IDF-DAR Risk Calculator in the 6-week pre-Ramadan period between 30th January and 19th March 2026. Results: A total of 458 PwD were evaluated and stratified into low (15.7%), moderate (41%), and high risk (43.3%) categories. Most participants had Type 2 diabetes (83.6%), with 60.3% having a disease duration exceeding 10 years and 43% exhibiting poor glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c >9%). Insulin therapy was used by 76.4% of participants, including two individuals with Type 1 diabetes using AID systems. Most participants reported no recent hypoglycemia (76.4%), 81.0% performed glucose monitoring, and 3.3% used CGM. Severe comorbidities were uncommon, with 1.1% having unstable macrovascular disease and 4.4% advanced chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30). Notably, 72.2% received structured Ramadan education. Conclusion Majority of PwD attending tertiary diabetes clinics were in the moderate- to high-risk category and intended to fast despite medical advice against fasting in some cases. Although most participants were on insulin therapy, hypoglycemia was low in the pre-Ramadan period. Integration of modern technologies, advanced insulin therapies, and structured education may support safer fasting practices.
Risk Assessment ; Diabetes Mellitus ; Hospitals ; Fasting

Background: We investigated osteoporosis management strategies and clinical outcomes following the occurrence of medicationrelated osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). Methods: We retrospectively studied individuals diagnosed with MRONJ during osteoporosis treatment who were managed in the Osteoporosis Center or the Oral Maxillofacial Surgery & Dental Unit at Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong between 2010 and 2022. We examined subsequent osteoporosis management plans, fracture events, and bone mineral density (BMD). Results: Thirty-six individuals were included (mean age, 78.5 years; 94.4% women). The estimated prevalence of MRONJ was 0.26%. All patients had been exposed to bisphosphonates, and seven had also received denosumab before MRONJ. Following MRONJ, only 14 individuals continued anti-osteoporosis treatment, a decision influenced by a higher fracture probability at MRONJ onset. The most common regimen was a teriparatide-raloxifene sequence (n=8): three patients achieved stable BMD, four achieved improving BMD, and one exhibited a mixed response. The patient with a mixed BMD response had also been treated with denosumab. Six patients sustained incident fractures after MRONJ, and these patients had lower BMD T-scores than their counterparts. Two patients experienced MRONJ recurrence, which was associated with the resumption of bisphosphonate or denosumab therapy after MRONJ. These patients had higher BMD T-scores than those who did not experience MRONJ recurrence. Conclusion MRONJ is challenging because high fracture risk necessitates discontinuation of antiresorptive agents. Teriparatide followed by raloxifene may be a reasonable regimen. Individualised decisions in osteoporosis management after MRONJ are required to balance fracture risk reduction with minimising MRONJ recurrence.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: Even minor sacral slanting can influence T1 tilt and shoulder balance. Yet, the relationship between sacral slanting and postoperative shoulder imbalance (PSI) has not been previously explored. To determine risk factors for PSI in Lenke 2A adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients, with an emphasis on sacral slanting. Methods: The study encompassed 96 consecutive patients who had undergone posterior correction and fusion surgery for Lenke type 2A AIS. Patients were grouped into PSI(+) and PSI(-) based on postoperative outcomes. Additionally, they were classified into left-sided slanting, no slanting, and right-sided slanting groups according to the degree of sacral slanting. Various radiological measures were compared. Results: Patients in the PSI(+) group exhibited a smaller preoperative proximal thoracic curve and a higher main thoracic curve correction rate than those in the PSI(-) group. The presence or absence of sacral slanting did not exhibit a significant variation in PSI occurrence. However, the right-sided sacral slanting group showed a larger delta radiologic shoulder height compared to the other 2 groups (7.1 mm vs. 1.5 & 3.3 mm). Conclusion Sacral slanting was not directly linked to the development of PSI. Despite the common postoperative elevation of the left shoulder, the shoulder height differences decreased over the follow-up period. Especially in cases with a right-sided tilted sacrum, the PSI demonstrated progressive improvement, with an associated increase in the rightward distal wedging angle, leading to distal adding-on.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: Even minor sacral slanting can influence T1 tilt and shoulder balance. Yet, the relationship between sacral slanting and postoperative shoulder imbalance (PSI) has not been previously explored. To determine risk factors for PSI in Lenke 2A adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients, with an emphasis on sacral slanting. Methods: The study encompassed 96 consecutive patients who had undergone posterior correction and fusion surgery for Lenke type 2A AIS. Patients were grouped into PSI(+) and PSI(-) based on postoperative outcomes. Additionally, they were classified into left-sided slanting, no slanting, and right-sided slanting groups according to the degree of sacral slanting. Various radiological measures were compared. Results: Patients in the PSI(+) group exhibited a smaller preoperative proximal thoracic curve and a higher main thoracic curve correction rate than those in the PSI(-) group. The presence or absence of sacral slanting did not exhibit a significant variation in PSI occurrence. However, the right-sided sacral slanting group showed a larger delta radiologic shoulder height compared to the other 2 groups (7.1 mm vs. 1.5 & 3.3 mm). Conclusion Sacral slanting was not directly linked to the development of PSI. Despite the common postoperative elevation of the left shoulder, the shoulder height differences decreased over the follow-up period. Especially in cases with a right-sided tilted sacrum, the PSI demonstrated progressive improvement, with an associated increase in the rightward distal wedging angle, leading to distal adding-on.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: Even minor sacral slanting can influence T1 tilt and shoulder balance. Yet, the relationship between sacral slanting and postoperative shoulder imbalance (PSI) has not been previously explored. To determine risk factors for PSI in Lenke 2A adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients, with an emphasis on sacral slanting. Methods: The study encompassed 96 consecutive patients who had undergone posterior correction and fusion surgery for Lenke type 2A AIS. Patients were grouped into PSI(+) and PSI(-) based on postoperative outcomes. Additionally, they were classified into left-sided slanting, no slanting, and right-sided slanting groups according to the degree of sacral slanting. Various radiological measures were compared. Results: Patients in the PSI(+) group exhibited a smaller preoperative proximal thoracic curve and a higher main thoracic curve correction rate than those in the PSI(-) group. The presence or absence of sacral slanting did not exhibit a significant variation in PSI occurrence. However, the right-sided sacral slanting group showed a larger delta radiologic shoulder height compared to the other 2 groups (7.1 mm vs. 1.5 & 3.3 mm). Conclusion Sacral slanting was not directly linked to the development of PSI. Despite the common postoperative elevation of the left shoulder, the shoulder height differences decreased over the follow-up period. Especially in cases with a right-sided tilted sacrum, the PSI demonstrated progressive improvement, with an associated increase in the rightward distal wedging angle, leading to distal adding-on.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.