Purpose: Panic disorder (PD) and PD with comorbid agoraphobia (PDA) share similar clinical characteristics but possess distinct symptom structures. However, studies specifically investigating the differences between PD and PDA are rare. Thus, the present study conducted a network analysis to examine the clinical networks of PD and PDA, focusing on panic symptom severity, anxiety sensitivity, anticipatory fear, and avoidance responses. By comparing the differences in network structures between PD and PDA, with the goal of identifying the central and bridge, we suggest clinical implications for the development of targeted interventions. Materials and Methods: A total sample (n=147; 55 male, 92 female) was collected from the psychiatric outpatient clinic of the university hospital. We conducted network analysis to examine crucial nodes in the PD and PDA networks and compared the two networks to investigate disparities and similarities in symptom structure. Results The most influential node within the PD network was Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised (ASI-R1; fear of respiratory symptom), whereas Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS5; phobic avoidance of physical sensations) had the highest influence in the PDA network. Additionally, bridge centrality estimates indicated that each of the two nodes met the criteria for “bridge nodes” within their respective networks: ASI-R1 (fear of respiratory symptom) and Albany Panic and Phobic Questionnaire (APPQ3; interoceptive fear) for the PD group, and PDSS5 (phobic avoidance of physical sensation) and APPQ1 (panic frequency) for the PDA group Conclusion: Although the network comparison test did not reveal statistical differences between the two networks, disparities in community structure, as well as central and bridging symptoms, were observed, suggesting the possibility of distinct etiologies and treatment targets for each group. The clinical implications derived from the similarities and differences between PD and PDA networks are discussed.

Background/Aims: Elevated troponin levels predict in-hospital mortality and influence decisions regarding thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the usefulness of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) regarding PE remains uncertain. We aimed to establish the optimal cut-off level and compare its performance for precise risk stratification. Methods: 374 patients diagnosed with acute PE were reviewed. PE-related adverse outcomes, a composite of PE-related deaths, cardiopulmonary resuscitation incidents, systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, and all-cause mortality within 30 days were evaluated. The optimal hsTnT cut-off for all-cause mortality, and the net reclassification index (NRI) was used to assess the incremental value in risk stratification. Results: Among 343 normotensive patients, 17 (5.0%) experienced all-cause mortality, while 40 (10.7%) had PE-related adverse outcomes. An optimal hsTnT cut-off value of 60 ng/L for all-cause mortality (AUC 0.74, 95% CI 0.61–0.85, p < 0.001) was identified, which was significantly associated with PE-related adverse outcomes (OR 4.07, 95% CI 2.06–8.06, p < 0.001). Patients with hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L were older, hypotensive, had higher creatinine levels, and right ventricular dysfunction signs. Combining hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L with simplified pulmonary embolism severity index ≥1 provided additional prognostic information. Reclassification analysis showed a significant shift in risk categories, with an NRI of 1.016 ± 0.201 (p < 0.001). Conclusions We refined troponin’s predictive value in patients with acute PE, proposing a new cut-off value of hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L. Validation through large-scale studies is essential to offer clinically useful guidance for managing patient population.

Purpose: Panic disorder (PD) and PD with comorbid agoraphobia (PDA) share similar clinical characteristics but possess distinct symptom structures. However, studies specifically investigating the differences between PD and PDA are rare. Thus, the present study conducted a network analysis to examine the clinical networks of PD and PDA, focusing on panic symptom severity, anxiety sensitivity, anticipatory fear, and avoidance responses. By comparing the differences in network structures between PD and PDA, with the goal of identifying the central and bridge, we suggest clinical implications for the development of targeted interventions. Materials and Methods: A total sample (n=147; 55 male, 92 female) was collected from the psychiatric outpatient clinic of the university hospital. We conducted network analysis to examine crucial nodes in the PD and PDA networks and compared the two networks to investigate disparities and similarities in symptom structure. Results The most influential node within the PD network was Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised (ASI-R1; fear of respiratory symptom), whereas Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS5; phobic avoidance of physical sensations) had the highest influence in the PDA network. Additionally, bridge centrality estimates indicated that each of the two nodes met the criteria for “bridge nodes” within their respective networks: ASI-R1 (fear of respiratory symptom) and Albany Panic and Phobic Questionnaire (APPQ3; interoceptive fear) for the PD group, and PDSS5 (phobic avoidance of physical sensation) and APPQ1 (panic frequency) for the PDA group Conclusion: Although the network comparison test did not reveal statistical differences between the two networks, disparities in community structure, as well as central and bridging symptoms, were observed, suggesting the possibility of distinct etiologies and treatment targets for each group. The clinical implications derived from the similarities and differences between PD and PDA networks are discussed.

Purpose: We present a case of equatorial and posterior zonular weakness observed during cataract surgery in both eyes with no prior history of trauma or surgery.Case summary: A 73-year-old woman visited out clinic and reported decreased visual acuity. She was found to have a best corrected visual acuity of 0.5 in both eyes. Cataracts were noted during a slit lamp examination and cataract surgery was subsequently performed. During the left eye surgery, although there was no evident weakening during the anterior capsulotomy, the equatorial and posterior zonules were damaged during phacoemulsification. This led to consistent aspiration of the equatorial and posterior capsule (PC) into the phaco-handpiece tip during epinucleus and cortex removal. The PC eventually ruptured necessitating anterior vitrectomy and a 3-piece intraocular lens insertion into the ciliary sulcus. Two weeks later, the right eye surgery encountered similar challenges in removing the epinucleus and cortex. The surgery was completed successfully by elevating the irrigation bottle, frequently injecting an ophthalmic viscoelastic device (OVD), and removing the remaining lens material using a bimanual irrigator/aspirator. Conclusions This case highlights that equatorial and posterior zonular weakness can occur in the absence of trauma or prior to surgery. To manage such cases, it is advisable to elevate the irrigation bottle height, continuously inject OVD during surgery, and use a bimanual irrigator/aspirator.

Objective: This study examined the up-to-date facts from real cases of emergency medical litigations to provide information to act appropriately in medical lawsuits against emergency medicine specialists. Methods: Data were collected from lawsuits from 2008 to 2020. Thirty-nine cases were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Six emergency medicine specialists and one resident with a lawyer’s license participated in the analysis. Results: Medical litigations have surged since 2015. The lawsuits were due mainly to misdiagnoses and violations of the duty to explain. Medical staff won in 12 (38.7%) cases and lost in 19 (61.3%). The main reason for losing was a violation of the duty of care. In criminal claims, 50% of cases resulted in confinement. The win rate was 1.4 times higher in cases where consultation was requested from other specialties (42.9% and 29.4% win with consultation and without, respectively). Conclusion The win rate in lawsuits is decreasing, and the level of penalty is becoming more severe. The decrease in the violation of duty to explain was attributed to education through the years. The win rate was higher when consulting with other specialists. Hence, active consultation is recommended. In addition, the system of radiology interpretation requires improvement because of the many misdiagnoses from reading diagnostic images.

Background: Tinnitus is a bothersome condition associated with various mechanisms of action. Although treatment methods vary according to these mechanisms, standardized guidelines would benefit both patients and clinicians. We conducted a Delphi study, a method that collects expert opinions through multiple rounds of questionnaires, to reach a consensus on tinnitus treatment with professional experts. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted to develop a clinical consensus on tinnitus treatment. The experts scored each statement on a scale of 1 (highest disagreement) to 9 (highest agreement) for their level of agreement on tinnitus treatment.Consensus was defined when 75% or more of the participants scored 7–9, and 15% or less scored 1–3. To ensure reliability of the responses, the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance were evaluated. Results: Approximately 19 of 31 statements reached a consensus. All 3 statements reached a consensus regarding the candidates for treatment. Regarding treatment, 3 of 8 statements on medication, 2 of 2 statements on tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and 5 of 7 statements on auditory rehabilitation reached a positive consensus. Although all 6 statements regarding miscellaneous treatment reached a consensus, most were negatively agreed. For treatment with neuromodulation, none of the 5 statements reached a consensus. Conclusion The experts reached a high level of consensus on treatment candidates, tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and auditory rehabilitation in this modified Delphi study. The results of this study can provide beneficial and practical information for clinicians regarding the treatment of tinnitus.

Background: Tinnitus is a bothersome condition associated with various mechanisms of action. Although treatment methods vary according to these mechanisms, standardized guidelines would benefit both patients and clinicians. We conducted a Delphi study, a method that collects expert opinions through multiple rounds of questionnaires, to reach a consensus on tinnitus treatment with professional experts. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted to develop a clinical consensus on tinnitus treatment. The experts scored each statement on a scale of 1 (highest disagreement) to 9 (highest agreement) for their level of agreement on tinnitus treatment.Consensus was defined when 75% or more of the participants scored 7–9, and 15% or less scored 1–3. To ensure reliability of the responses, the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance were evaluated. Results: Approximately 19 of 31 statements reached a consensus. All 3 statements reached a consensus regarding the candidates for treatment. Regarding treatment, 3 of 8 statements on medication, 2 of 2 statements on tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and 5 of 7 statements on auditory rehabilitation reached a positive consensus. Although all 6 statements regarding miscellaneous treatment reached a consensus, most were negatively agreed. For treatment with neuromodulation, none of the 5 statements reached a consensus. Conclusion The experts reached a high level of consensus on treatment candidates, tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and auditory rehabilitation in this modified Delphi study. The results of this study can provide beneficial and practical information for clinicians regarding the treatment of tinnitus.

Purpose: Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023. Materials and Methods: The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys. Results: Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively. Conclusions The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.

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.