Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by erythema, papules, ocular symptoms, and heightened sensitivity. Patients with neurogenic symptoms such as burning or stinging remain particularly difficult to manage. Current guidelines often underrepresent energy-based devices (EBDs), pigmentary sequelae, psychosocial burden, and ocular comorbidities. Objective: To examine Korean dermatologists’ expert perspectives on rosacea management, focusing on skin sensitivity, neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary changes, psychosocial impact, ocular involvement, and EBD use. Methods: A web-based, 29-item survey was administered to 25 board-certified Korean dermatologists (May–June 2025). Quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed. Results: Erythematotelangiectatic and papulopustular phenotypes with sensitivity skin predominated. EBDs (pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light) were frequently used but limited by cost and sensitivity issues. Neurogenic symptoms were recognized but rarely treated with neuromodulators. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent, yet monitoring was inconsistent.Psychosocial and ocular aspects were acknowledged but seldomly systematically addressed.Respondents expressed interest in emerging adjunctive treatments such as cold plasma, skin boosters, and holistic care approaches. Conclusion Korean dermatologists adopt individualized strategies for rosacea, yet practice gaps remain regarding neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary complications, and psychosocial and ocular comorbidities. Findings support the need for updated multidisciplinary, phenotype-driven guidelines aligned with real-world practice.

This report describes two cases of patients with rosacea treated with a polycaprolactone (PCL)-based topical formulation combined with nonablative cold atmospheric plasma (CAP). Both patients, two Korean females aged 32 and 47 years, exhibited substantial improvement in their symptoms following the combined therapy.The CAP-assisted topical PCL emulsion therapy effectively diminished facial erythema, telangiectasia, and the inflammatory papules of rosacea without any significant adverse events. The report suggests that this novel therapeutic approach may represent a promising alternative to laser therapy for managing rosacea, under scoring the need for further research to elucidate its long-term efficacy and safety.

Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Background: With the increasing demand for surgical procedures in dermatology, resident education in surgical dermatology has become important for delivering high-quality treatment.However, it remains unclear if a sufficient number of residency programs with quality standards exist, as there has been little research on this subject in South Korea. Objective: To identify the status of surgical dermatology education among residents and assess dermatologists’ perceptions of the subject. Methods: A 35-question survey was developed and distributed to all resident training hospitals and local clinics listed by the Korean Society of Dermatologic Surgery. Only third- and fourthyear residents were included and board-certified specialists from training hospitals and local clinics responded to the surveys. Results: Survey participants included 88 residents and 120 specialists of whom one-quarter of the residents attended regular monthly educational sessions. Most residents (93%) participated in cosmetic procedures, and many performed laser therapy. However, the opportunity for toxin or filler injection was rare, with only 12% of the residents having experience with filler injections. In response, 49% of residents and 32% of specialists said that more cosmetic training was required, whereas 28% of residents and 50% of specialists said that more training for both cosmetic and conventional surgeries was necessary. Conclusion The survey demonstrated a need for more training programs in surgical dermatology during residency and a perception gap between residents and specialists. Therefore, developing educational residency programs that focus on basic dermatologic surgery principles and their applications in cosmetic procedures is essential.

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in pancreatic cancer is primarily criticized for its technical and oncological safety. Although solid evidence has not yet been established, many institutions are performing LPD for pancreatic cancer patients, with continuous efforts to ensure oncologic safety. In this video, we demonstrated a case of standard LPD combined with vascular resection in pancreatic cancer.

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in pancreatic cancer is primarily criticized for its technical and oncological safety. Although solid evidence has not yet been established, many institutions are performing LPD for pancreatic cancer patients, with continuous efforts to ensure oncologic safety. In this video, we demonstrated a case of standard LPD combined with vascular resection in pancreatic cancer.

Purpose: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the adverse clinical impact of intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Materials and Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative clinical variables were compared between patients who underwent converted PD (cPD) and initially planned open PD (OPD) to investigate the clinical impact and predictive factors of intraoperative conversion during LPD. Results: A total of 171 patients were included. Among them, 31 patients (19.3%) were found to have intraoperative conversion during LPD. Failure of progression due to severe adhesion (12 patients, 7%) and major vessel invasion (7 patients, 4%) were the two most frequent reasons for conversion. On multivariate analysis, age [Exp(β)=1.044, p=0.044] and pancreatic texture [Expa(β)=2.431, p=0.039) were found to be independent factors for predicting intraoperative conversion during LPD. In comparative analysis with the OPD group, the cPD group had a longer operation time (516.8 min vs. 449.9 min, p=0.001), higher rate of postoperative hemorrhage (12.1% vs. 0.85%, p=0.008), higher reoperation rate (9.1% vs. 0%, p=0.01), and higher cost (21886.4 USD vs. 17168.9 USD, p=0.018). Conclusion Intraoperative conversion during LPD can have an adverse clinical impact on the postoperative course following LPD. Appropriate patients selection and improvement of surgical techniques will be crucial for unnecessary intraoperative conversion and safe LPD.

Purpose: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the adverse clinical impact of intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Materials and Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative clinical variables were compared between patients who underwent converted PD (cPD) and initially planned open PD (OPD) to investigate the clinical impact and predictive factors of intraoperative conversion during LPD. Results: A total of 171 patients were included. Among them, 31 patients (19.3%) were found to have intraoperative conversion during LPD. Failure of progression due to severe adhesion (12 patients, 7%) and major vessel invasion (7 patients, 4%) were the two most frequent reasons for conversion. On multivariate analysis, age [Exp(β)=1.044, p=0.044] and pancreatic texture [Expa(β)=2.431, p=0.039) were found to be independent factors for predicting intraoperative conversion during LPD. In comparative analysis with the OPD group, the cPD group had a longer operation time (516.8 min vs. 449.9 min, p=0.001), higher rate of postoperative hemorrhage (12.1% vs. 0.85%, p=0.008), higher reoperation rate (9.1% vs. 0%, p=0.01), and higher cost (21886.4 USD vs. 17168.9 USD, p=0.018). Conclusion Intraoperative conversion during LPD can have an adverse clinical impact on the postoperative course following LPD. Appropriate patients selection and improvement of surgical techniques will be crucial for unnecessary intraoperative conversion and safe LPD.