Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted global infrastructure. We surveyed laboratories to analyze the changes in testing methods and procedures to improve future pandemic preparedness. Methods: This study surveyed laboratory physicians and technologists in South Korea and analyzed responses from 126 of 323 institutions. The survey was conducted in May 2023 using the proficiency test of the Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service and examined the diagnostic procedures, personnel, equipment, and quality control. The survey comprised 15 questions covering respondent demographics, public-private proficiency projects, COVID-19 testing procedures, and laboratory status. Results: Of the 126 laboratories, 66.7% performed bacterial smear and culture, 65.9% had biosafety level 2 facilities, and 39.7% had separate nucleic acid extraction areas. Furthermore, 98.4% of the laboratories had biological safety cabinets, the median number of PCR machines was four units, and 77.8% had autoclaves. The median numbers of personnel managing and conducting tests were one and three, respectively. Additionally, 88.1% of the laboratories found the COVID-19 proficiency test helpful, with key benefits in terms of accuracy and skill improvement. COVID-19 tests were primarily used for symptomatic or contact person testing, pre-admission screening, and periodic proactive testing. Specialized testing laboratories conducted up to 50,000 tests daily, and tertiary hospitals conducted up to 1,500 tests.Emergency, pooled, and rapid antigen tests were widely used. Most respondents wanted future tests for respiratory viruses, bacteria, and viral diarrhea, indicating a willingness to participate. Conclusion Aggressive testing and collaboration between health agencies and laboratories are crucial for managing emerging diseases. Systematic preparations are essential to maintain and strengthen laboratory capabilities for future infectious disease outbreaks.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted global infrastructure. We surveyed laboratories to analyze the changes in testing methods and procedures to improve future pandemic preparedness. Methods: This study surveyed laboratory physicians and technologists in South Korea and analyzed responses from 126 of 323 institutions. The survey was conducted in May 2023 using the proficiency test of the Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service and examined the diagnostic procedures, personnel, equipment, and quality control. The survey comprised 15 questions covering respondent demographics, public-private proficiency projects, COVID-19 testing procedures, and laboratory status. Results: Of the 126 laboratories, 66.7% performed bacterial smear and culture, 65.9% had biosafety level 2 facilities, and 39.7% had separate nucleic acid extraction areas. Furthermore, 98.4% of the laboratories had biological safety cabinets, the median number of PCR machines was four units, and 77.8% had autoclaves. The median numbers of personnel managing and conducting tests were one and three, respectively. Additionally, 88.1% of the laboratories found the COVID-19 proficiency test helpful, with key benefits in terms of accuracy and skill improvement. COVID-19 tests were primarily used for symptomatic or contact person testing, pre-admission screening, and periodic proactive testing. Specialized testing laboratories conducted up to 50,000 tests daily, and tertiary hospitals conducted up to 1,500 tests.Emergency, pooled, and rapid antigen tests were widely used. Most respondents wanted future tests for respiratory viruses, bacteria, and viral diarrhea, indicating a willingness to participate. Conclusion Aggressive testing and collaboration between health agencies and laboratories are crucial for managing emerging diseases. Systematic preparations are essential to maintain and strengthen laboratory capabilities for future infectious disease outbreaks.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted global infrastructure. We surveyed laboratories to analyze the changes in testing methods and procedures to improve future pandemic preparedness. Methods: This study surveyed laboratory physicians and technologists in South Korea and analyzed responses from 126 of 323 institutions. The survey was conducted in May 2023 using the proficiency test of the Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service and examined the diagnostic procedures, personnel, equipment, and quality control. The survey comprised 15 questions covering respondent demographics, public-private proficiency projects, COVID-19 testing procedures, and laboratory status. Results: Of the 126 laboratories, 66.7% performed bacterial smear and culture, 65.9% had biosafety level 2 facilities, and 39.7% had separate nucleic acid extraction areas. Furthermore, 98.4% of the laboratories had biological safety cabinets, the median number of PCR machines was four units, and 77.8% had autoclaves. The median numbers of personnel managing and conducting tests were one and three, respectively. Additionally, 88.1% of the laboratories found the COVID-19 proficiency test helpful, with key benefits in terms of accuracy and skill improvement. COVID-19 tests were primarily used for symptomatic or contact person testing, pre-admission screening, and periodic proactive testing. Specialized testing laboratories conducted up to 50,000 tests daily, and tertiary hospitals conducted up to 1,500 tests.Emergency, pooled, and rapid antigen tests were widely used. Most respondents wanted future tests for respiratory viruses, bacteria, and viral diarrhea, indicating a willingness to participate. Conclusion Aggressive testing and collaboration between health agencies and laboratories are crucial for managing emerging diseases. Systematic preparations are essential to maintain and strengthen laboratory capabilities for future infectious disease outbreaks.

Purpose: This study aimed to analyze whether the occurrence of complications increases if radiotherapy (RT) is administered after breast reconstructive surgery using implants. Methods: This retrospective study included 80 patients who underwent breast reconstruction using implants, of which 16 (20.0%) underwent RT. Most patients underwent conventional fractionated RT (n = 13), and hypofractionated RT was performed in 3 patients. Most patients (n = 51, 63.8%) underwent delayed reconstruction, which involved implant replacement after tissue expander insertion. Only 29 patients (36.3%) underwent immediate reconstruction simultaneously with breast cancer surgery. Results: The median postoperative follow-up was 39.9 months (range, 8.7–120.3 months). Complications occurred in 18 (22.5%); infectionecrosis (n = 8), leakage/rupture (n = 8), and capsular contracture (n = 2). Infectionecrosis is common in patients undergoing RT. Complications occurred in 4 patients (25.0%) who received RT and 14 (21.9%) who did not receive RT, and complications did not significantly increase with RT (P = 0.511). There was no overall difference in complications between the immediate (4 of 29) and delayed (14 of 51) reconstruction groups (P = 0.129). Nine patients underwent reoperation because of complications; 3 (18.8%) received RT and 6 (9.4%) did not receive RT. The reoperation rate did not increase significantly with RT (P = 0.254). There were 3 cases of recurrence, and patients who received RT had no recurrence. Conclusion RT did not significantly increase the complication or reoperation rates if reconstructive surgery was performed using implants. Therefore, RT should be performed in patients at a high risk of recurrence.

Purpose: This study aimed to analyze whether the occurrence of complications increases if radiotherapy (RT) is administered after breast reconstructive surgery using implants. Methods: This retrospective study included 80 patients who underwent breast reconstruction using implants, of which 16 (20.0%) underwent RT. Most patients underwent conventional fractionated RT (n = 13), and hypofractionated RT was performed in 3 patients. Most patients (n = 51, 63.8%) underwent delayed reconstruction, which involved implant replacement after tissue expander insertion. Only 29 patients (36.3%) underwent immediate reconstruction simultaneously with breast cancer surgery. Results: The median postoperative follow-up was 39.9 months (range, 8.7–120.3 months). Complications occurred in 18 (22.5%); infectionecrosis (n = 8), leakage/rupture (n = 8), and capsular contracture (n = 2). Infectionecrosis is common in patients undergoing RT. Complications occurred in 4 patients (25.0%) who received RT and 14 (21.9%) who did not receive RT, and complications did not significantly increase with RT (P = 0.511). There was no overall difference in complications between the immediate (4 of 29) and delayed (14 of 51) reconstruction groups (P = 0.129). Nine patients underwent reoperation because of complications; 3 (18.8%) received RT and 6 (9.4%) did not receive RT. The reoperation rate did not increase significantly with RT (P = 0.254). There were 3 cases of recurrence, and patients who received RT had no recurrence. Conclusion RT did not significantly increase the complication or reoperation rates if reconstructive surgery was performed using implants. Therefore, RT should be performed in patients at a high risk of recurrence.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted global infrastructure. We surveyed laboratories to analyze the changes in testing methods and procedures to improve future pandemic preparedness. Methods: This study surveyed laboratory physicians and technologists in South Korea and analyzed responses from 126 of 323 institutions. The survey was conducted in May 2023 using the proficiency test of the Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service and examined the diagnostic procedures, personnel, equipment, and quality control. The survey comprised 15 questions covering respondent demographics, public-private proficiency projects, COVID-19 testing procedures, and laboratory status. Results: Of the 126 laboratories, 66.7% performed bacterial smear and culture, 65.9% had biosafety level 2 facilities, and 39.7% had separate nucleic acid extraction areas. Furthermore, 98.4% of the laboratories had biological safety cabinets, the median number of PCR machines was four units, and 77.8% had autoclaves. The median numbers of personnel managing and conducting tests were one and three, respectively. Additionally, 88.1% of the laboratories found the COVID-19 proficiency test helpful, with key benefits in terms of accuracy and skill improvement. COVID-19 tests were primarily used for symptomatic or contact person testing, pre-admission screening, and periodic proactive testing. Specialized testing laboratories conducted up to 50,000 tests daily, and tertiary hospitals conducted up to 1,500 tests.Emergency, pooled, and rapid antigen tests were widely used. Most respondents wanted future tests for respiratory viruses, bacteria, and viral diarrhea, indicating a willingness to participate. Conclusion Aggressive testing and collaboration between health agencies and laboratories are crucial for managing emerging diseases. Systematic preparations are essential to maintain and strengthen laboratory capabilities for future infectious disease outbreaks.