1.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.
2.Urethral Sparing versus Trans-Vesical Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy:A Comparative Analysis of Perioperative, Postoperative Outcomes, and Ejaculation Preservation
Yu Seob SHIN ; Shang Weon PAK ; Wonku HWANG ; Seon Beom JO ; Jong Wook KIM ; Mi Mi OH ; Hong Seok PARK ; Du Geon MOON ; Sun Tae AHN
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):387-395
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.
3.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.
4.Posterior Lumbar Element Enforcement by Decompression Alone with Interspinous Fixation without Interbody Fusion for the Surgical Management of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
Hyun-Woong PARK ; Moon-Soo HAN ; Ji-Ho JUNG ; Jong-Hwan HONG ; Shin-Seok LEE ; Jung-Kil LEE
Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society 2025;68(2):150-158
Objective:
: In degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, interbody fusion surgery (IFS) has long been recommended as the gold standard of surgical management. However, IFS is less recommended for high-risk patients such as the elderly because it involves extensive surgery, with a long operation time and high volumes of blood loss, which lead to marked perioperative morbidity. We report an alternative primary and salvage treatment technique for high-risk lumbar spondylolisthesis through posterior lumbar element reinforcement using interspinous fixation and decompression alone without interbody fusion.
Methods:
: Plain radiographs, computed tomography scans, and magnetic resonance imaging, taken at different intervals, were used to measure local disc height (DH), vertebral body slippage (BS), and segmental motion angle (SMA). A Visual analogue scale and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were applied pre-operation and at the last follow-up.
Results:
: The local SMA decreased significantly by 3.46°±3.07°, from 10.61°±3.42° preoperatively to 7.15±3.70 at the last follow-up (p<0.001). The DH decreased from 8.61±2.88 mm preoperatively to 8.41±2.48 mm at the last follow-up (p=0.074). The BS decreased from 3.49±4.29 mm preoperatively to 3.41±4.91 mm at the last follow-up (p=0.092). None of the patients reported worsening pain or an increased ODI after surgery, and there were no surgery-related complications.
Conclusion
: Posterior lumbar element reinforcement by decompression alone with SPIRE™ fixation is an alternative primary and salvage treatment option for select patients with spondylolisthesis.
5.Posterior Lumbar Element Enforcement by Decompression Alone with Interspinous Fixation without Interbody Fusion for the Surgical Management of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
Hyun-Woong PARK ; Moon-Soo HAN ; Ji-Ho JUNG ; Jong-Hwan HONG ; Shin-Seok LEE ; Jung-Kil LEE
Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society 2025;68(2):150-158
Objective:
: In degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, interbody fusion surgery (IFS) has long been recommended as the gold standard of surgical management. However, IFS is less recommended for high-risk patients such as the elderly because it involves extensive surgery, with a long operation time and high volumes of blood loss, which lead to marked perioperative morbidity. We report an alternative primary and salvage treatment technique for high-risk lumbar spondylolisthesis through posterior lumbar element reinforcement using interspinous fixation and decompression alone without interbody fusion.
Methods:
: Plain radiographs, computed tomography scans, and magnetic resonance imaging, taken at different intervals, were used to measure local disc height (DH), vertebral body slippage (BS), and segmental motion angle (SMA). A Visual analogue scale and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were applied pre-operation and at the last follow-up.
Results:
: The local SMA decreased significantly by 3.46°±3.07°, from 10.61°±3.42° preoperatively to 7.15±3.70 at the last follow-up (p<0.001). The DH decreased from 8.61±2.88 mm preoperatively to 8.41±2.48 mm at the last follow-up (p=0.074). The BS decreased from 3.49±4.29 mm preoperatively to 3.41±4.91 mm at the last follow-up (p=0.092). None of the patients reported worsening pain or an increased ODI after surgery, and there were no surgery-related complications.
Conclusion
: Posterior lumbar element reinforcement by decompression alone with SPIRE™ fixation is an alternative primary and salvage treatment option for select patients with spondylolisthesis.
6.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
7.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
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.
8.Urethral Sparing versus Trans-Vesical Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy:A Comparative Analysis of Perioperative, Postoperative Outcomes, and Ejaculation Preservation
Yu Seob SHIN ; Shang Weon PAK ; Wonku HWANG ; Seon Beom JO ; Jong Wook KIM ; Mi Mi OH ; Hong Seok PARK ; Du Geon MOON ; Sun Tae AHN
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):387-395
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.
9.Urethral Sparing versus Trans-Vesical Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy:A Comparative Analysis of Perioperative, Postoperative Outcomes, and Ejaculation Preservation
Yu Seob SHIN ; Shang Weon PAK ; Wonku HWANG ; Seon Beom JO ; Jong Wook KIM ; Mi Mi OH ; Hong Seok PARK ; Du Geon MOON ; Sun Tae AHN
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):387-395
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.
10.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail