Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions have evolved rapidly in recent years, with dedicated metal stents playing a crucial role in this process. Specifically, the invention of biflanged short metal-covered stents, including lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), and modifications in a variety of tubular self-expandable metal stents (SEMS), have led to innovations in EUS-guided interventions. LAMS or non-LAMS stents are commonly used in the EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections, especially in cases of walled-off necrosis. Additionally, LAMS is commonly considered for drainage of the EUS-guided gallbladder or dilated common bile duct and EUS-guided gastroenterostomy. Fully or partially covered tubular SEMS with several new designs are being considered for EUS-guided biliary drainage. This review focuses on advances in SEMS for EUS-guided interventions and discusses related research results.

Background: As the prevalence of hypertension increases with age and the proportion of the older population is also on the rise, research on the characteristics of older hypertensive patients and the importance of frailty is necessary. This study aimed to identify clinical characteristics of older hypertension in Korea and to investigate these characteristics based on frailty status. Methods: The HOW to Optimize eLDerly systolic BP (HOWOLD-BP) is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial that aims to compare intensive (target systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≤ 130 mmHg) with standard (target SBP ≤ 140 mmHg) treatment to reduce cardiovascular events in older hypertensive Korean patients aged ≥ 65 years. Data were analyzed through a screening assessment of 2,085 patients recruited from 11 university hospitals. Demographic, functional (physical and cognitive), medical history, laboratory data, quality of life, and medication history of antihypertensive drugs were assessed. Results: The mean age was 73.2 years (standard deviation ± 5.60), and 48.0% (n = 1,001) were male. Prevalent conditions included dyslipidemia (66.5%), obesity (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m 2 , 53.6%), and diabetes (28.9%). Dizziness and orthostatic hypotension were self-reported by 1.6% (n = 33) and 1.2% (n = 24), respectively. The majority of patients were on two antihypertensive drugs (48.4%), while 27.5% (n = 574) and 20.8% (n = 433) were on 1 and 3 antihypertensive medications, respectively. Frail to pre-frail patients were older and also tended to have dependent instrumental activities of daily living, slower gait speed, weaker grip strength, lower quality of life, and lower cognitive function. The frail to pre-frail group reported more dizziness (2.6% vs. 1.2%, P < 0.001) and had concerning clinical factors, including lower glomerular filtration rate, more comorbidities such as diabetes, stroke, and a history of admission. Frail to pre-frail older hypertensive patients used slightly more antihypertensive medications than robust older hypertensive patients (1.95 vs. 2.06, P = 0.003). Pre-frail to frail patients often chose beta-blockers as a third medication over diuretics. Conclusion This study described the general clinical characteristics of older hypertensive patients in Korea. Frail hypertensive patients face challenges in achieving positive clinical outcomes because of multifactorial causes: they are older, have more morbidities, decreased function, lower quality of life and cognitive function, and take more antihypertensive medications. Therefore, it is essential to comprehensively evaluate and monitor diseaserelated or drug-related adverse events more frequently during regular check-ups, which is necessary for pre-frail to frail older patients with hypertension.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the degree of interest in robot-assisted spine surgery (RASS) among residents and to investigate the learning curve for beginners performing robotic surgery. Methods: We conducted a survey to assess awareness and interest in RASS among young neurosurgery residents. Subsequently, we offered a hands-on training program using a dummy to educate one resident. After completing the program, the trained resident performed spinal fusion surgery with robotic assistance under the supervision of a mentor. The clinical outcomes and learning curve associated with robotic surgery were then analyzed. Results: Neurosurgical residents had limited opportunities to participate in spinal surgery during their training. Despite this, there was a significant interest in the emerging field of robotic surgery. A trained resident performed RASS under the supervision of a senior surgeon. A total of 166 screw insertions were attempted in 28 patients, with 2 screws failing due to skiving. According to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification, 85.54% of the screws were rated as grade A, 11.58% as grade B, 0.6% as grade C, and 1.2% as grade D. The clinical acceptance rate was approximately 96.99%, which is comparable to the results reported by senior experts and time per screw statistically significantly decreased as experience was gained. Conclusion RASS can be performed with high accuracy within a relatively short timeframe, if residents receive adequate training.

This study aimed to elucidate the clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with toxoplasmosis in Korea. We collected and analyzed the specific research data of 5,917 patients from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment (HIRA; 2007–2020) and 533 electronic medical records (EMRs; 2003–2021) of Korean patients. The HIRA data showed that toxoplasmosis is an endemic disease that occurs constantly in Korea, with a large proportion of patients complaining of ocular symptoms. Of the 533 patients for whom EMR data were available, 54.6% were diagnosed with toxoplasmosis; ocular toxoplasmosis (35.7%), congenital toxoplasmosis (4.7%), cerebral toxoplasmosis (4.1%), pulmonary toxoplasmosis (0.4%), and toxoplasma hepatitis (0.6%), in order of frequency. In ocular cases, 54.4% of the patients had diverse ocular pathologies. Toxoplasmosis in Korea is characterized by a high frequency of ocular symptoms, most patients are adults, and 51.8% of patients with seropositivity were positive for IgG, suggesting prior infection. This study highlights that patients with ocular symptoms are included in the major diagnosis group for acquired toxoplasmosis in Korea.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of physical performance level on patient-reported outcomes after surgery for distal radius fractures (DRF). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 157 women with DRF who underwent surgery and completed the short physical performance battery (SPPB) within one month of trauma between January 2019 and August 2022. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed one year postoperatively using the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) and patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) questionnaires. Multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted using patient characteristics, fracture type, treatment-related factors, and SPPB results to evaluate the factors associated with patient-reported outcomes. Results: Multivariate linear regression model revealed that dominant hand involvement (B=7.329; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.901–11.757; P=0.001) and lower SPPB scores (B=-2.145; 95% CI, -3.194 to -1.096; P<0.001) were significantly associated with higher DASH and PRWE scores. Conclusions Physical performance level evaluated using the SPPB was significantly associated with poor clinical outcomes of DRF after surgery. Physicians should implement a systematic approach to enhance physical performance along with appropriate fracture treatment to improve clinical outcomes following surgery for DRF.