Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Background: The medial canthal region features a complex three-dimensional and internal anatomical structure. When reconstructing a defect in this area, it is crucial to consider both functional and aesthetic aspects, which presents significant challenges. Generally, local flaps are preferred for reconstruction; however, skin grafts can be used when local flaps are not feasible. Therefore, we conducted a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes skin grafts when local flaps were not feasible, to determine which surgical method is more effective for medial canthal region reconstruction. Methods: Twenty-five patients who underwent medial canthal region reconstruction using skin grafts or local flaps from 2002 to 2021 were enrolled. Patient information was obtained from medical records. Five plastic surgeons evaluated the surgical outcomes based on general appearance, color, contour, and symmetry. Results: Skin grafts were used in eight patients and local flaps were used in 13. Combined reconstructions were employed in four cases. Minor complications arose in four cases but improved with conservative treatment. No major complications were reported. Recurrence of the skin cancer was noted in two cases. All categories showed higher scores for the local flap compared to both skin graft and combined reconstruction; however, the differences were not statistically significant respectively. Conclusion The choice of appropriate surgical methods for reconstructing defects in the medial canthal region depends on various factors, including the patient’s overall health, the size and depth of the defect, and the degree of involvement of surrounding structures. When a local flap is not feasible, a skin graft may provide favorable surgical outcomes. Therefore, a skin graft can serve as a viable alternative for reconstructing the medial canthal region.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare treatment outcomes and toxicity profile between imaged-guided brachytherapy (IGBT) versus conventional brachytherapy (CBT) performed by the same practitioner during the same time period. Materials and Methods: Medical records of 104 eligible patients who underwent brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer were retrospectively reviewed. Fifty patients (48.1%) underwent IGBT, and 54 (51.9%) patients underwent CBT. All patients underwent concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin. High-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy with dose prescription of 25-30 Gy in 4-6 fractions was performed for all patients. Late lower gastrointestinal (GI) and urinary toxicities occurred more than 3 months after the end of brachytherapy were included for comparative and dosimetric analyses. Results: The median follow-up period was 18.33 months (range, 3.25 to 38.43 months). There were no differences in oncologic outcomes between the two groups. The IGBT group had lower rate of actuarial grade ≥ 3 toxicity than the CBT group (2-year, 4.5% vs. 25.7%; p=0.030). Cumulative equieffective D2cc of sigmoid colon was significantly correlated with grade ≥ 2 lower GI toxicity (p=0.033), while equieffective D2cc of rectum (p=0.055) and bladder (p=0.069) showed marginal significance with corresponding grade ≥ 2 toxicities in the IGBT group. Half of grade ≥ 3 lower GI toxicities impacted GI tract above the rectum. Optimal thresholds of cumulative D2cc of sigmoid colon and rectum were 69.7 Gy and 70.8 Gy, respectively, for grade ≥ 2 lower GI toxicity. Conclusion IGBT showed superior toxicity profile to CBT. Evaluating the dose to the GI tract above rectum by IGBT might prevent some toxicities.

Background: Delta ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) articulation affords excellent outcomes in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, the safety and reliability of this bearing in revision THA need more evidence. This study aimed to report complications, radiological changes, clinical results, and survivorship of revision THA using Delta CoC articulation at minimum 5-year follow-up. Methods: We reviewed 118 revision THAs (113 patients: 68 men and 45 women) performed with use of Delta CoC bearing. Their mean age was 58.7 years (range, 30–90 years) and their mean body mass index was 24.6 kg/m 2 (range, 15.2–32.5 kg/m 2 ). These patients were followed up for 5–12 years (mean, 7.2 years). We evaluated squeak, grinding sensation, ceramic fracture, dislocation, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), periprosthetic fracture, prosthetic loosening, ceramic wear, osteolysis, modified Harris hip score (mHHS), and survivorship with any reoperation after the revision as the endpoint. Results: Two patients (1.7%) had grinding sensation, but no patient had ceramic fracture. Reoperations were necessary in 9 hips (7.6%) due to PJIs in 2, stem loosening in 2, cup loosening in 2, recurrent dislocation in 2, and periprosthetic fracture in 1. No hip had measurable wear or osteolysis. The average mHHS improved from 53.3 points before the revision to 82.3 points at the final follow-up. Survivorship was 91.6% (95% confidence interval, 86.3%–96.9%) at 12 years. Conclusions The Delta ceramic bearing appeared a reliable option for revision THA, showing encouraging mid-term results with acceptable survivorship and a low complication rate.

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.

Background/Aims: It remains unclear which maintenance treatment modality is most appropriate for mild gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).We aimed to compare on-demand treatment with continuous treatment using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in the maintenance treatment for patients with non-erosive GERD or mild erosive esophagitis. Methods: Patients whose GERD symptoms improved after 4 weeks of standard dose PPI treatment were prospectively enrolled at 25 hospitals.Subsequently, the enrolled patients were randomly assigned to either an on-demand or a continuous maintenance treatment group, and followed in an 8-week interval for up to 24 weeks. Results: A total of 304 patients were randomized to maintenance treatment (continuous, n = 151 vs on-demand, n = 153). The primary outcome, the overall proportion of unwillingness to continue the assigned maintenance treatment modality, failed to confirm the noninferiority of on-demand treatment (45.9%) compared to continuous treatment (36.1%). Compared with the on-demand group, the GERD symptom and health-related quality of life scores significantly more improved and the overall satisfaction score was significantly higher in the continuous treatment group, particularly at week 8 and week 16 of maintenance treatment. Work impairment scores were not different in the 2 groups, but the prescription cost was less in the on-demand group. Serum gastrin levels significantly elevated in the continuous treatment group, but not in the on-demand group. Conclusions Continuous treatment seems to be more appropriate for the initial maintenance treatment of non-erosive GERD or mild erosive esophagitis than on-demand treatment. Stepping down to on-demand treatment needs to be considered after a sufficient period of continuous treatment.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.