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.

With a rapidly aging population and increasing use of antiresorptive agents, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) represents a growing clinical challenge worldwide. To address the need for tailored clinical guidance, a multidisciplinary task force was convened. Five Korean academic societies—the Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, the Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, the Korean Society of Osteoporosis, and the Korean Endocrine Society—collaborated to develop this position statement. The consensus was formulated through comprehensive reviews of literature, combined with three rounds of formal surveys to consolidate expert opinion on controversial topics. This position paper provides evidence-based clinical guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of MRONJ tailored to the Korean healthcare environment. The diagnostic criteria affirm the standard definition but add a provision for diagnosis based on clinical or radiographic evidence of necrotic bone, even if the traditional 8-week timeframe has not been met. The committee advocates for retaining Stage 0 in the staging system to emphasize early detection and preventive intervention. Key recommendations include prescriptive, drug-specific guidelines for prophylactic drug holidays (e.g., a 2-month pause for oral bisphosphonates; timing surgery 3-4 months after the last denosumab injection) to minimize MRONJ risk from dental procedures. This statement also provides a clear framework for therapeutic drug holidays in established MRONJ, carefully balancing the need for jaw healing against systemic fracture risk. For treatment, this statement advocates for early and active surgical intervention across all MRONJ stages, supported by evidence of superior long-term outcomes compared to conservative management.This position statement offers a unique, evidence-based Korean clinical practice guideline for managing MRONJ. It is intended to standardize care, reduce clinical confusion, and ultimately improve patient outcomes by providing a clear framework for decision-making.

With a rapidly aging population and increasing use of antiresorptive agents, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) represents a growing clinical challenge worldwide. To address the need for tailored clinical guidance, a multidisciplinary task force was convened. Five Korean academic societies—the Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, the Korean Society of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, the Korean Osteoporosis Society, and the Korean Endocrine Society—collaborated to develop this position statement. The consensus was formulated through comprehensive reviews of literature, combined with three rounds of formal surveys to consolidate expert opinion on controversial topics. This position paper provides evidence-based clinical guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of MRONJ tailored to the Korean healthcare environment. The diagnostic criteria affirm the standard definition but add a provision for diagnosis based on clinical or radiographic evidence of necrotic bone, even if the traditional 8-week timeframe has not been met. The committee advocates for retaining stage 0 in the staging system to emphasize early detection and preventive intervention. Key recommendations include prescriptive, drug-specific guidelines for prophylactic drug holidays (e.g., a 2-month pause for oral bisphosphonates; timing surgery 3 to 4 months after the last denosumab injection) to minimize MRONJ risk from dental procedures. This statement also provides a clear framework for therapeutic drug holidays in established MRONJ, carefully balancing the need for jaw healing against systemic fracture risk. For treatment, this statement advocates for early and active surgical intervention across all MRONJ stages, supported by evidence of superior long-term outcomes compared to conservative management. This position statement offers a unique, evidence-based Korean clinical practice guideline for managing MRONJ. It is intended to standardize care, reduce clinical confusion, and ultimately improve patient outcomes by providing a clear framework for decision-making.

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.