Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: To evaluate the relationship between distal fusion level in correction and fusion surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and radiologic changes in the sacroiliac (SI) joint. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients who underwent correction and fusion for AIS between 2005 and 2017 with at least 5 years of follow-up. We categorized patients into two groups: Group 1 (distal fusion above L2, 74 patients) and Group 2 (distal fusion at L3 and below, 52 patients). Radiologic parameters and SI joint changes were evaluated on plain radiographs obtained from preoperative to 5 years postoperatively. We also investigated other risk factors for SI joint change. Results: Analysis of demographic factors revealed no significant difference between the two groups. There was a significant difference in the incidence of SI joint change between Group 1 (5 patients, 6.75%) and Group 2 (18 patients, 34.61%), with Group 2 showing a faster increase in incidence according to the Kaplan-Meier method (p<0.0001). Preoperative lumbar lordosis (LL) and ΔLL had a significant relationship with SI joint changes [preoperative LL, hazard ratio (HR)=0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.64– 0.93, p=0.008; ΔLL, HR=0.79, 95% CI=0.67–0.95, p=0.01). Conclusion After AIS surgery, patients who had fusion to the lower lumbar vertebrae (L3 or L4) experienced a higher incidence and faster progression of degenerative changes in the SI joint. Low preoperative LL and inadequate correction of LL during the operation were also risk factors for SI joint degeneration.

Background: To identify the optimal surgical technique for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), this study compared surgical outcomes and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in patients undergoing single-level ACDF using cage alone single-level fusion and plate fixation techniques. Methods: This single-center retrospective study (2003–2018) included patients who underwent single-level ACDF with either plate fixation (PLATE) or cage (CAGE) alone. The radiologic and clinical outcomes between the 2 surgical groups were compared over a 4-year follow-up period. Outcomes of interest included parameters related to range of motion, sagittal alignment, as well as fusion, subsidence, and ASD rates. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Dysphagia and hoarseness rates were estimated based on medical records. Results: Forty-seven patients were included (n=17 in CAGE group). In the CAGE group, 94.1% of the patients had Bridwell grade 1 or 2, compared to 83.3% in the PLATE group (p = 0.396). Subsidence occurred in 12.5% and 3.6% of the CAGE and PLATE cases, respectively (p = 0.543). Segmental kyphosis progressed in the CAGE group compared to the PLATE group at 12, 24, and 48 months (p < 0.001). Radiographic ASD was observed in 41.2% and 30.0% of patients in the CAGE and PLATE groups, respectively, with a higher incidence in the upper segments for both groups. Preoperative NDI scores were similar between the groups; however, postoperatively, the CAGE group had significantly lower NDI scores (3.50 ± 2.74 vs. 8.00 ± 5.81) at 4 years (p = 0.020). Neck pain VAS scores also showed significant improvement in the CAGE group (2.33 ± 2.94) compared with that in the PLATE group (3.07 ± 2.31) at 4 years (p = 0.045). Both groups showed comparable arm pain VAS scores at 2 and 4 years postoperatively. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in 1 patient in the PLATE group, resolving almost completely by 1 year. Conclusions Single-level ACDF using a cage alone technique demonstrated favorable radiologic and clinical outcomes overall compared to plate-augmented ACDF. However, plate augmentation is recommended for patients with severe cervical kyphosis or those at high risk of subsidence.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: To evaluate the relationship between distal fusion level in correction and fusion surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and radiologic changes in the sacroiliac (SI) joint. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients who underwent correction and fusion for AIS between 2005 and 2017 with at least 5 years of follow-up. We categorized patients into two groups: Group 1 (distal fusion above L2, 74 patients) and Group 2 (distal fusion at L3 and below, 52 patients). Radiologic parameters and SI joint changes were evaluated on plain radiographs obtained from preoperative to 5 years postoperatively. We also investigated other risk factors for SI joint change. Results: Analysis of demographic factors revealed no significant difference between the two groups. There was a significant difference in the incidence of SI joint change between Group 1 (5 patients, 6.75%) and Group 2 (18 patients, 34.61%), with Group 2 showing a faster increase in incidence according to the Kaplan-Meier method (p<0.0001). Preoperative lumbar lordosis (LL) and ΔLL had a significant relationship with SI joint changes [preoperative LL, hazard ratio (HR)=0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.64– 0.93, p=0.008; ΔLL, HR=0.79, 95% CI=0.67–0.95, p=0.01). Conclusion After AIS surgery, patients who had fusion to the lower lumbar vertebrae (L3 or L4) experienced a higher incidence and faster progression of degenerative changes in the SI joint. Low preoperative LL and inadequate correction of LL during the operation were also risk factors for SI joint degeneration.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.