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.

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.

Postoperative thoracic epidural hematoma (PTEH) is a rare and complex condition that can lead to significant neurological deficits, persistent pain, and reduced functional abilities. Despite advancements in minimally invasive techniques such as unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) decompression, recurrence of PTEH remains a challenging clinical issue. This case report describes the innovative application of unilateral biportal endoscopy-assisted thoracic interbody fusion to manage recurrent thoracic idiopathic epidural hematoma. We discuss the surgical technique, clinical outcomes, and potential benefits of this method in reducing recurrence and stabilizing the thoracic spine. A 78-year-old woman without comorbidities underwent UBE decompression for symptomatic D11–12 and L1–2 spinal stenosis. She later developed delayed postoperative spinal epidural hematoma (SEH), causing paraparesis and bowel/bladder dysfunction. Despite 2 successful emergency hematoma evacuations with magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed clearance and symptom improvement, recurrences continued to take place, each occurring within shorter intervals. At the third recurrence, occult spinal microinstability was suspected as the cause of persistent bleeding. Unilateral biportal endoscopy-assisted thoracic interbody fusion was performed to address this issue. After fusion surgery, the patient experienced no further hematoma recurrences and fully regained neurological and functional capabilities at the 9-month follow-up. While surgical decompression is the standard for SEH, recurrent or delayed postoperative cases require a tailored approach. This case underscores the importance of considering thoracic interbody fusion for recurrent SEH to address microinstability and ongoing bleeding. Unilateral biportal endoscopy-assisted fusion offers a minimally invasive yet definitive solution, highlighting the need for individualized surgical strategies to achieve optimal outcomes.

Background: Minimally invasive spine surgery techniques, including unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE), have become popular due to reduced soft tissue trauma and quicker recovery. Traditional lumbar fusion approaches using a single polyetheretherketone (PEEK) or expandable cage present limitations in fusion surface area and sagittal correction. Methods: We developed a novel UBE-assisted lumbar interbody fusion technique utilizing a dual hybrid cage system: a PEEK cage placed contralaterally and an expandable cage inserted ipsilaterally. The procedure was performed in 3 patients with degenerative lumbar disease, and perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Results: All patients experienced significant symptom relief, early ambulation, and radiologic evidence of fusion without complications. The dual-cage configuration improved segmental stability, restored lordosis, and maximized graft integration. Conclusion This dual hybrid cage insertion method in UBE transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion provides a safe, effective, and minimally invasive strategy for lumbar fusion with promising clinical outcomes. Further studies are warranted to validate the long-term results.

Early mortality following hemodialysis initiation hinders survival improvement in older patients. This study aimed to develop a clinical risk model for predicting 6-month mortality after dialysis initiation in older Korean hemodialysis patients. Methods: We analyzed data from incident hemodialysis patients aged >70 years from the Korean Society of Geriatric Nephrology (KSGN) database. A prediction model was developed using multivariate logistic regression analysis and externally validated with independent datasets. Results: Among 1,751 incident hemodialysis patients, the 6-month mortality rate was 15.5%. Using multivariate logistic analysis, we constructed the KSGN score as an independent risk factor for 6-month mortality, and its components and score are as follows: old age at dialysis initiation (≥85 years, score 2); hypertension and renovascular disease as a primary etiology of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) (score 1); malignancy history (yes, score 1); low serum albumin (<3.5 g/dL, score 1); hypertension treatment (yes, score –1); prepared vascular access on maintenance dialysis (arteriovenous fistula/arteriovenous graft, score –3). In the development cohort, the area under the curve (AUC) for the KSGN score was significantly higher than the Alberta Wick’s score (0.707 vs. 0.683, p = 0.001). In the validation cohort, the KSGN score’s performance was comparable to existing models. Conclusion: The KSGN score may be a valuable tool for predicting early mortality after dialysis initiation in older patients with ESKD, aiding in decision-making and management regarding dialysis initiation.

The prevalence of dementia is 2- to 7-fold higher among patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) than among the general population; however, its clinical implications in this population remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether comorbid dementia increases mortality among older patients with ESKD undergoing newly initiated hemodialysis. Methods: We analyzed data from the Korean Society of Geriatric Nephrology retrospective cohort, which included 2,736 older ESKD patients (≥70 years old) who started hemodialysis between 2010 and 2017. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression analyses were used to examine all-cause mortality between the patients with and without dementia in this cohort. Results: Of the 2,406 included patients, 8.3% had dementia at the initiation of dialysis; these patients were older (79.6 ± 6.0 years) than patients without dementia (77.7 ± 5.5 years) and included more women (male:female, 89:111). Pre-ESKD diagnosis of dementia was associated with an increased risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio, 1.503; p < 0.001), and this association remained consistent after multivariate adjustment (hazard ratio, 1.268; p = 0.009). In subgroup analysis, prevalent dementia was associated with mortality following dialysis initiation in female patients, those aged <85 years, those with no history of cerebrovascular accidents or severe behavioral disorders, those not residing in nursing facilities, and those with no or short-term hospitalization. Conclusion: A pre-ESKD diagnosis of dementia is associated with mortality following dialysis initiation in older Korean population. In older patients with ESKD, cognitive assessment at dialysis initiation is necessary.

Methods: This study included 104 patients who underwent ULIF using the “insert and revolve technique” between July 2019 and September 2022. The patients were followed up for at least 12 months postoperatively. The clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg pain and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified McNab’s criteria. Changes in segmental lordosis (SL), intervertebral disc height (IVDH), segmental coronal alignment (SCA), cage subsidence, and fusion grade were evaluated at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Results: The VAS scores for leg and back pain and ODI score showed significant improvement. Based on the Macnab’s criteria, 97 patients showed excellent outcomes and seven demonstrated good outcomes at 12 months. The mean IVDH increased from 6.3±2 to 10±2.1 mm immediately after surgery and 10±1.1 mm at 6 months. SL improved from 9.3°±11.5° to 17.78°±8.1°, while SCA improved from 7.7°±2.1° to 3.4°±1.2° at 1 year. Moreover, 92 and 11 patients showed grade 1 and 2 fusion, respectively, according to the Bridwell grading at 1 year. Conclusions The “insert and revolve technique” facilitates the successful insertion of large cages, contributing to the restoration of disc height and coronal and sagittal spinal correction with favorable fusion rates.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

Rare diseases are characterized by a low prevalence, which often means that patients with such diseases are undiagnosed and do not have effective treatment options. Neurodevelopmental and neurological disorders make up around 40% of rare diseases and in the past decade, there has been a surge in the identification of genes linked to these conditions. This has created the need for model organisms to reveal mechanisms and to assess therapeutic methods. Different model animals have been employed, like Caenorhabditis elegans, Drosophila, zebrafish, and mice, to investigate the rare neurological diseases and to identify the causative genes. While the zebrafish has become a popular animal model in the last decade, mainly for studying brain development, understanding neural circuits, and conducting chemical screens, the mouse has been a very well-known model for decades. This review explores the strengths and limitations of using zebrafish as a vertebrate animal model for rare neurological disorders, emphasizing the features that make this animal model promising for the research on these disorders.