Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Background: The number of general cosmetic practitioners impersonating dermatologists in Korea has increased, leading to serious harm that is significant enough to attract the attention of health authorities, which dermatologists are deeply concerned about. Objective: We conducted a survey targeting dermatologists to gather their opinions on the behavior, problems, and countermeasures of general cosmetic practitioners disguising themselves as dermatologists. Methods: A total of 280 dermatologists completed the survey between January and February 2024. The questions covered demographic characteristics, experiences of cosmetic general practitioners falsely introduced themselves as dermatologists, complications experienced by patients who received treatment after being mistaken for a dermatologist, the seriousness of the problem for cosmetic general practitioners impersonating dermatologists, and the relationship between the shortage of essential medical personnel and the phenomenon of cosmetic general practitioners disguising themselves as dermatologists. Results: Despite cases in which cosmetic general practitioners impersonate dermatologists, most dermatologists have not responded appropriately in many instances. Dermatologists have reported many cases of complications after receiving dermatological treatment from such cosmetic general practitioners. Most dermatologists are concerned about the serious problems of general cosmetic practitioners, disguising themselves as dermatologists and anticipating many adverse effects. Conclusion We believe that we need to pool our wisdom to solve these problems and expect that this study will provide valuable basic data for solving these problems in the dermatology and medical environments of Korea.

Background: The number of general cosmetic practitioners impersonating dermatologists in Korea has increased, leading to serious harm that is significant enough to attract the attention of health authorities, which dermatologists are deeply concerned about. Objective: We conducted a survey targeting dermatologists to gather their opinions on the behavior, problems, and countermeasures of general cosmetic practitioners disguising themselves as dermatologists. Methods: A total of 280 dermatologists completed the survey between January and February 2024. The questions covered demographic characteristics, experiences of cosmetic general practitioners falsely introduced themselves as dermatologists, complications experienced by patients who received treatment after being mistaken for a dermatologist, the seriousness of the problem for cosmetic general practitioners impersonating dermatologists, and the relationship between the shortage of essential medical personnel and the phenomenon of cosmetic general practitioners disguising themselves as dermatologists. Results: Despite cases in which cosmetic general practitioners impersonate dermatologists, most dermatologists have not responded appropriately in many instances. Dermatologists have reported many cases of complications after receiving dermatological treatment from such cosmetic general practitioners. Most dermatologists are concerned about the serious problems of general cosmetic practitioners, disguising themselves as dermatologists and anticipating many adverse effects. Conclusion We believe that we need to pool our wisdom to solve these problems and expect that this study will provide valuable basic data for solving these problems in the dermatology and medical environments of Korea.

Background: The number of general cosmetic practitioners impersonating dermatologists in Korea has increased, leading to serious harm that is significant enough to attract the attention of health authorities, which dermatologists are deeply concerned about. Objective: We conducted a survey targeting dermatologists to gather their opinions on the behavior, problems, and countermeasures of general cosmetic practitioners disguising themselves as dermatologists. Methods: A total of 280 dermatologists completed the survey between January and February 2024. The questions covered demographic characteristics, experiences of cosmetic general practitioners falsely introduced themselves as dermatologists, complications experienced by patients who received treatment after being mistaken for a dermatologist, the seriousness of the problem for cosmetic general practitioners impersonating dermatologists, and the relationship between the shortage of essential medical personnel and the phenomenon of cosmetic general practitioners disguising themselves as dermatologists. Results: Despite cases in which cosmetic general practitioners impersonate dermatologists, most dermatologists have not responded appropriately in many instances. Dermatologists have reported many cases of complications after receiving dermatological treatment from such cosmetic general practitioners. Most dermatologists are concerned about the serious problems of general cosmetic practitioners, disguising themselves as dermatologists and anticipating many adverse effects. Conclusion We believe that we need to pool our wisdom to solve these problems and expect that this study will provide valuable basic data for solving these problems in the dermatology and medical environments of Korea.

Background: The number of general cosmetic practitioners impersonating dermatologists in Korea has increased, leading to serious harm that is significant enough to attract the attention of health authorities, which dermatologists are deeply concerned about. Objective: We conducted a survey targeting dermatologists to gather their opinions on the behavior, problems, and countermeasures of general cosmetic practitioners disguising themselves as dermatologists. Methods: A total of 280 dermatologists completed the survey between January and February 2024. The questions covered demographic characteristics, experiences of cosmetic general practitioners falsely introduced themselves as dermatologists, complications experienced by patients who received treatment after being mistaken for a dermatologist, the seriousness of the problem for cosmetic general practitioners impersonating dermatologists, and the relationship between the shortage of essential medical personnel and the phenomenon of cosmetic general practitioners disguising themselves as dermatologists. Results: Despite cases in which cosmetic general practitioners impersonate dermatologists, most dermatologists have not responded appropriately in many instances. Dermatologists have reported many cases of complications after receiving dermatological treatment from such cosmetic general practitioners. Most dermatologists are concerned about the serious problems of general cosmetic practitioners, disguising themselves as dermatologists and anticipating many adverse effects. Conclusion We believe that we need to pool our wisdom to solve these problems and expect that this study will provide valuable basic data for solving these problems in the dermatology and medical environments of Korea.

Purpose: The original eCura system was designed to stratify the risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) after endoscopic resection (ER) in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC).We assessed the effectiveness of a modified eCura system for reflecting the characteristics of undifferentiated-type (UD)-EGC. Materials and Methods: Six hundred thirty-four patients who underwent non-curative ER for UD-EGC and received either additional surgery (radical surgery group; n=270) or no further treatment (no additional treatment group; n=364) from 18 institutions between 2005 and 2015 were retrospectively included in this study. The eCuraU system assigned 1 point each for tumors >20 mm in size, ulceration, positive vertical margin, and submucosal invasion <500 µm; 2 points for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm; and 3 points for lymphovascular invasion. Results: LNM rates in the radical surgery group were 1.1%, 5.4%, and 13.3% for the low-(0–1 point), intermediate- (2–3 points), and high-risk (4–8 points), respectively (P-fortrend<0.001). The eCuraU system showed a significantly higher probability of identifying patients with LNM as high-risk than the eCura system (66.7% vs. 22.2%; McNemar P<0.001).In the no additional treatment group, overall survival (93.4%, 87.2%, and 67.6% at 5 years) and cancer-specific survival (99.6%, 98.9%, and 92.9% at 5 years) differed significantly among the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories, respectively (both P<0.001). In the high-risk category, surgery outperformed no treatment in terms of overall mortality (hazard ratio, 3.26; P=0.015). Conclusions The eCuraU system stratified the risk of LNM in patients with UD-EGC after ER. It is strongly recommended that high-risk patients undergo additional surgery.