Background/Aims: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) frequently occurs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly when influenced by factors such as abdominal infections, IBD flare-ups, or surgical procedures. The implications of PVT range from immediate issues such as intestinal ischemia to long-term concerns including portal hypertension and its complications. However, there is a notable gap in comprehensive studies on PVT in IBD, especially with the increasing incidence of IBD in Asia. This research aimed to evaluate the clinical features and outcomes of PVT in patients with IBD at a leading hospital in South Korea. Methods: This retrospective analysis reviewed adult patients diagnosed with both IBD and PVT from 1989 to 2021 at a renowned South Korean medical center. The study focused on patient characteristics, specifics of PVT, administered treatments, and outcomes, all confirmed through enhanced CT scans. Results: A total of 78 patients met the study’s criteria. Notably, only 20.5% (16/78) were treated with oral anticoagulants; however, a vast majority (96.2%; 75/78) achieved complete radiographic resolution (CRR). When comparing patients receiving anticoagulants to those who did not, a significant preference for anticoagulant use was observed in cases where the main portal vein was affected, as opposed to just the left or right veins (p = 0.006). However, multivariable analysis indicated that neither anticoagulant use nor previous surgeries significantly impacted CRR. Conclusions Patients with IBD and PVT generally had favorable outcomes, regardless of anticoagulant use.

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.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background/Aims: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) frequently occurs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly when influenced by factors such as abdominal infections, IBD flare-ups, or surgical procedures. The implications of PVT range from immediate issues such as intestinal ischemia to long-term concerns including portal hypertension and its complications. However, there is a notable gap in comprehensive studies on PVT in IBD, especially with the increasing incidence of IBD in Asia. This research aimed to evaluate the clinical features and outcomes of PVT in patients with IBD at a leading hospital in South Korea. Methods: This retrospective analysis reviewed adult patients diagnosed with both IBD and PVT from 1989 to 2021 at a renowned South Korean medical center. The study focused on patient characteristics, specifics of PVT, administered treatments, and outcomes, all confirmed through enhanced CT scans. Results: A total of 78 patients met the study’s criteria. Notably, only 20.5% (16/78) were treated with oral anticoagulants; however, a vast majority (96.2%; 75/78) achieved complete radiographic resolution (CRR). When comparing patients receiving anticoagulants to those who did not, a significant preference for anticoagulant use was observed in cases where the main portal vein was affected, as opposed to just the left or right veins (p = 0.006). However, multivariable analysis indicated that neither anticoagulant use nor previous surgeries significantly impacted CRR. Conclusions Patients with IBD and PVT generally had favorable outcomes, regardless of anticoagulant use.

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.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: Infantile hemangioma (IH) is a common benign vascular tumor that occurs during infancy. Oral propranolol is used as a first-line treatment. However, standardized guidelines for evaluating treatment efficacy, particularly the appropriate timing and parameters for Doppler ultrasound (US), have not been established. This study reports on the evaluation of therapeutic efficacy of oral propranolol solution in IH patients using Doppler US, and aims to propose the appropriate timing and parameters for using Doppler US based on this experience. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 120 patients with IH who were treated with oral propranolol solution and maintained for over 6 months from May 2017 to April 2023. Doppler US evaluation of IH was performed at diagnosis, 1-2 and 6-12 months after treatment initiation, and 6 months post-therapy cessation. A complete response (CR) was identified as a reduction in vascularity along with a decrease in longest diameter (LD) or thickness of 50% or more. Recurrence was evaluated based on increased vascularity or size 6 months after treatment discontinuation. Results: Of 120 patients with IH, 82 females and 38 males were analyzed. IH was first detected at a median age of 12 days (range, 1-240 days), and treatment began at 76 days (range, 27-570 days), continuing for an average of 10.4 months (range, 5-24 months). Initial Doppler US measurements showed an LD of 2.65±1.52 cm and a thickness of 0.79±0.55 cm, with prominent vascularity. After 1-2 months of treatment, LD and thickness decreased by 12.9% and 25.9%, respectively. By 6-12 months, reductions reached 37.2% and 53.6%. CR occurred in 77 patients (64.2%) after 6-12 months of treatment. Eleven patients (9.2%) experienced a recurrence. Conclusion Doppler US is a valuable modality for evaluating the characteristics, treatment response, and recurrence of IH treated with oral propranolol.

Background: This study aimed to compare the intraoperative stability and early clinical outcomes of 40-mm diameter dual mobility (DM)-total hip arthroplasty (THA) with 36-mm ceramic head (large head) THA in active elderly patients with hip fractures. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from May 2022 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 60 years, displaced femoral neck fracture, Koval grade 1 or 2, planned 54-mm acetabular component, and over 1-year follow-up. Intraoperative stability tests were performed on all patients (internal rotation at 45°, 60°, and 90° of hip fracture). Functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score and University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] Score) were evaluated at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Gait analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques was conducted at 3 months postoperatively. Results: The study included 36 DM-THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 2.2 years; 44% women) and 37 large head THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 1.2 years; 64% women). No statistically significant differences were observed in functional outcomes and hip range of motion between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference in the gait speed and stance-swing phase of the large head THA group and the DM-THA group: the DM-THA group demonstrated superior gait speed (2.85 ± 0.83 kph vs. 2.04 ± 1.04 kph, p = 0.003) and higher stance phase ratios (operated side: 63.57% ± 3.82% vs. 48.19% ± 5.50%, p < 0.001; opposite side: 62.77% ± 2.27% vs. 49.93% ± 6.94%, p < 0.001). In the stability test at 90° of hip flexion, the DM-THA group had a measurement of 48.40° ± 5.17°, while the large head THA group had a measurement of 30.94° ± 2.98° (p = 0.012). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the intraoperative stability test showed the dislocation angle was notably different between the groups in the hip flexion position of 60° (51.60° ± 6.09° in the DM-THA group and 40.00° ± 2.80° in the large head THA group, p = 0.072). Conclusions Superior results were observed in the intraoperative stability test and early recovery of gait after DM-THA compared to large head THA. We believe that DM-THA can be a useful surgical option for THA in elderly patients with hip fractures.

Background/Aims: Inaccurate prediction of lymph node metastasis (LNM) may lead to unnecessary surgery following endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to validate the usefulness of artificial intelligence (AI) models for predicting LNM in patients with T1 CRC. Methods: We analyzed the clinical data, laboratory results, pathological reports, and endoscopic findings of patients who underwent radical surgery for T1 CRC. We developed AI models to predict LNM using four algorithms: regularized logistic regression classifier (RLRC), random forest classifier (RFC), CatBoost classifier (CBC), and the voting classifier (VC). Four histological factors and four endoscopic findings were included to develop AI models. Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) were measured to distinguish AI model performance in accordance with the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines. Results: Among 1,386 patients with T1 CRC, 173 patients (12.5%) had LNM. The AUROC values of the RLRC, RFC, CBC, and VC models for LNM prediction were significantly higher (0.673, 0.640, 0.679, and 0.677, respectively) than the 0.525 suggested in accordance with the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines (vs RLRC, p<0.001; vs RFC, p=0.001; vs CBC, p<0.001; vs VC, p<0.001). The AUROC value was similar between T1 colon versus T1 rectal cancers (0.718 vs 0.615, p=0.700). The AUROC value was also similar between the initial endoscopic resection and initial surgery groups (0.581 vs 0.746, p=0.845). Conclusions AI models trained on the basis of endoscopic findings and pathological features performed well in predicting LNM in patients with T1 CRC regardless of tumor location and initial treatment method.