Purpose: To propose improvements for promoting eyeball donation and managing donated corneas, this study analyzed the current system in Korea and reviewed relevant Korean laws, international standards, and foreign practices. Methods: To understand the current situation in Korea, annual reports published by the Korean Network for Organ Sharing and existing Korean laws were examined. For the international context, references were made to the National Organ Transplant Act, 21 CFR Part 1271 (Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 Part 1271), Current Good Tissue Practice guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration, and the Medical Standards of the Eye Bank Association of America in the United States. Opinions on promoting eyeball donation, improving the monitoring system for donated corneas and revising laws related to cornea management were gathered. The perspectives of 31 experts affiliated with the Korea Cornea Society were collected through a survey. Results: Currently, there are no laws or regulations that can be appropriately applied to the cornea which has properties of both organs and tissue. Additionally, there is no law regulating imported corneas. Therefore, there is a need to legislate or revise the current law; all experts who conducted the survey agreed on this. Furthermore, the current system faces limitations in the efficient procurement, stable supply, and management of donor corneas, as well as in donation promotion. To address these issues, the establishment of independent legislation for managing donated corneas and a National Central Eye Bank was proposed. This central body would oversee continuous personnel training, education, and monitoring, along with ensuring stable procurement, processing, and supply of corneas within a structured management system. Sixty-eight percent of the surveyed experts agreed with this proposal. Conclusions To establish a safe and efficient Korean corneal supply and demand system, it is imperative to enact cornea-specific laws, including the establishment of a National Central Eye Bank.

Enterococcus faecium, particularly in its multidrug-resistant forms, causes invasive nosocomial infections. Given the limited data comparing the effectiveness of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and the CLSI clinical breakpoints (CBPs) for quinupristin–dalfopristin (QD) resistance and the need to evaluate their practical application, we retrospectively investigated the susceptibility patterns of 287 E.faecium bloodstream isolates from Korean hospitals to QD using the updated EUCAST and CLSI CBPs and two antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods: disk diffusion (DD) and Sensititre broth microdilution (Sensititre). QD resistance rates were 5.9% (CLSI) and 18.8% (EUCAST) for DD and 22.6% (CLSI) and 28.2% (EUCAST) for Sensititre. The most prevalent QD resistance gene types among QD-resistant isolates were ermB+msrC+ or ermB– msrC+. Categorical agreement between DD and Sensititre ranged from 77.7% to 90.7%, depending on the testing method and CBPs applied. The EUCAST zone diameter CBPs more effectively help identify QD-resistant E. faecium isolates using the DD method than the CLSI zone diameter CBPs. In comparison, the CLSI minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) CBPs provide more reliable results for resistance classification in the Sensititre method than EUCAST MIC CBPs. These findings would help improve clinical decision-making for treating multidrug-resistant E. faecium infections.

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.

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.

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.

Angiogram-negative subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) represents a diagnostic challenge because rebleeding risk persists despite negative initial angiography. We report a rare case of a 65-year-old man presenting with diffuse SAH on initial CT but with negative CTA and transfemoral cerebral angiography (TFCA). Serial follow-up CT scans demonstrated gradual resolution of subarachnoid blood except for persistent prepontine cisternal hemorrhage. On hospital day 7, repeat TFCA revealed a bilobulated pseudoaneurysm arising from a midbasilar perforator artery. The lesion was treated using a modified stent-assisted coiling technique involving partial coil deployment, achieving complete angiographic obliteration with parent artery preservation. Post-procedural diffusion-weighted MRI demonstrated a left pontine infarction, but the patient achieved meaningful functional recovery and returned to work at the 3-month follow-up. This case underscores the necessity of repeat angiography in diffuse angiogram-negative SAH and highlights tailored endovascular strategies for fragile basilar perforator pseudoaneurysm.

Background: In a previous study, rhinoplasty rasp was shown an effective method for removal of button osteoma (BO) of the skull. Objective: In the present study, our experience was presented and surgical outcome using high-speed burr in surgery for BO evaluated. Methods: The register-based surgery reports of patients who underwent local excision of BO (2010∼2023) at a single institution were reviewed. Demographics, photodocumentation, radiologic examinations, pathology reports, data of scar prevention, and surgical outcome in the BO study cohort were analyzed. Results: A total of 20 BO lesions in 18 patients (14 females and four males; mean age of 52.4±14.3 years) who underwent surgery using high-speed burr were assessed. The mean size of BO was 9.3 mm (range, 5∼17 mm).Most of the BOs were located on the forehead (19/20, 95.0%), which was associated with the course of the supratrochlear (n=13) or supraorbital nerve (n=6). Minimal hematoma was complicated in three patients (16.7%).Delayed complications, recurrence, and severe scarring during the mean follow-up of 3.1±3.5 months were not reported. Conclusion The use of high-speed burr for surface smoothening may provide good surgical results in minimally invasive BO surgery.

Purpose: Temporal lobe resection can be categorized as either temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), which involves cortical resection confined to the temporal lobe, or temporal plus epilepsy (TPE), which entails temporal resection along with involvement of additional extratemporal regions. We compared these forms within a pediatric population. Methods: We identified 136 patients who underwent temporal resection over a 17-year period and investigated the differences in the clinical profiles and seizure outcomes between TLE and TPE. Results: Of the total sample, 110 patients (80.9%) presented with TLE and 26 (19.1%) with TPE. Significant differences were observed between the groups in age at seizure onset (TLE: 6.3 years, TPE: 0.9 years; P=0.001), age at epilepsy surgery (TLE: 14.2 years, TPE: 9.2 years; P=0.002), the proportion of patients with a history of infantile epileptic spasm syndrome (IESS) (TLE: 6 [5.5%], TPE: 8 [30.3%]; P<0.001), electroclinical presentation with IESS or Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) (TLE: 11 [10.0%], TPE: 13 [50.0%]; P<0.001), the presence of focal temporal hypometabolism on positron emission tomography (TLE: 74 [68.5%], TPE: 11 [44.0%], P=0.021), and the use of intracranial electroencephalogram monitoring (TLE: 58 [52.7%], TPE: 21 [80.8%]; P=0.009). Furthermore, multivariate analysis identified the epileptic presentation of IESS or LGS as a significant predictor of TPE (P=0.049). The rates of seizure outcomes of International League Against Epilepsy class 1–3 at 1 year of follow-up were 83.8% for the entire cohort, 89.1% for TLE, and 61.5% for TPE (P=0.002). Conclusion TPE appears to represent a substantial subset of pediatric temporal resections. The variation in seizure outcomes between groups underscores the importance of predicting TPE in advance, with implications for effective treatment planning.

The auditory brainstem response (ABR) is a noninvasive test that measures neural activity in response to auditory stimuli. Racial differences in head shape have provided strong evidence for specific normative data and accurate device calibration. International standards emphasize the need for standardized procedures and references. This study aimed to outline the standard procedure and related normative ABR values. Standard procedures were performed according to International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards. Five studies from two countries were included to compare the normative values of the ABR. The dataset from the National Standard Reference Data Center (NSRDC) was used as reference. Normative values were described in terms of stimuli, latency, and amplitude. For click stimuli, the latency of the ABR showed different patterns across populations, such as those from Korea and the USA. Although the latencies reported by the NSRDC and for Koreans were relatively short, those reported for USA populations were longer. Using clicks, it was shown that the USA population had the largest ABR amplitude compared to those reported for the other two datasets. For Wave V latency using tone bursts, a similar pattern was identified with click stimuli. Frequency-specific trends were also observed. Although there is a lack of ABR datasets, the information and insights of the present study could be utilized as standard guidelines in research on ABR.