Purpose: Proximal gastrectomy is an alternative to total gastrectomy (TG) for early gastric cancer (EGC) treatment in the upper stomach. However, its benefits in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes remain controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative, body compositional, nutritional, and survival outcomes of patients undergoing proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (PG-DTR) and TG for pathological stage I gastric cancer in upper stomach. Materials and Methods: The study included 506 patients who underwent gastrectomy for pathological stage I gastric cancer in the upper stomach between 2015 and 2019. Clinicopathological, perioperative, body compositional, nutritional, and survival outcomes were compared between the PG-DTR and TG groups. Results: The PG-DTR and TG groups included 197 (38.9%) and 309 (61.1%) patients, respectively. The PG-DTR group had a lower rate of early complications (p=0.041), lower diagnosis rate of anemia and vitamin B12 deficiency (all p < 0.001), and lower replacement rate of iron and vitamin B12 compared to TG group (all p < 0.001). The PG-DTR group showed reduced incidence of sarcopenia at 6-months postoperatively, preserved higher amount of visceral fat after surgery (p=0.032 and p=0.040, respectively), and showed a higher hemoglobin level (p=0.007). Oncologic outcomes were comparable between the groups. Conclusion The PG-DTR for EGC located in the upper stomach offered advantages of fewer complications, lower incidence of anemia and vitamin B12 deficiency, less decrease in visceral fat volume, and similar survival compared to TG. Consequently, PG-DTR may be considered a superior alternative treatment option to TG.

Purpose: Proximal gastrectomy is an alternative to total gastrectomy (TG) for early gastric cancer (EGC) treatment in the upper stomach. However, its benefits in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes remain controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative, body compositional, nutritional, and survival outcomes of patients undergoing proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (PG-DTR) and TG for pathological stage I gastric cancer in upper stomach. Materials and Methods: The study included 506 patients who underwent gastrectomy for pathological stage I gastric cancer in the upper stomach between 2015 and 2019. Clinicopathological, perioperative, body compositional, nutritional, and survival outcomes were compared between the PG-DTR and TG groups. Results: The PG-DTR and TG groups included 197 (38.9%) and 309 (61.1%) patients, respectively. The PG-DTR group had a lower rate of early complications (p=0.041), lower diagnosis rate of anemia and vitamin B12 deficiency (all p < 0.001), and lower replacement rate of iron and vitamin B12 compared to TG group (all p < 0.001). The PG-DTR group showed reduced incidence of sarcopenia at 6-months postoperatively, preserved higher amount of visceral fat after surgery (p=0.032 and p=0.040, respectively), and showed a higher hemoglobin level (p=0.007). Oncologic outcomes were comparable between the groups. Conclusion The PG-DTR for EGC located in the upper stomach offered advantages of fewer complications, lower incidence of anemia and vitamin B12 deficiency, less decrease in visceral fat volume, and similar survival compared to TG. Consequently, PG-DTR may be considered a superior alternative treatment option to TG.

Purpose: Proximal gastrectomy is an alternative to total gastrectomy (TG) for early gastric cancer (EGC) treatment in the upper stomach. However, its benefits in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes remain controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative, body compositional, nutritional, and survival outcomes of patients undergoing proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (PG-DTR) and TG for pathological stage I gastric cancer in upper stomach. Materials and Methods: The study included 506 patients who underwent gastrectomy for pathological stage I gastric cancer in the upper stomach between 2015 and 2019. Clinicopathological, perioperative, body compositional, nutritional, and survival outcomes were compared between the PG-DTR and TG groups. Results: The PG-DTR and TG groups included 197 (38.9%) and 309 (61.1%) patients, respectively. The PG-DTR group had a lower rate of early complications (p=0.041), lower diagnosis rate of anemia and vitamin B12 deficiency (all p < 0.001), and lower replacement rate of iron and vitamin B12 compared to TG group (all p < 0.001). The PG-DTR group showed reduced incidence of sarcopenia at 6-months postoperatively, preserved higher amount of visceral fat after surgery (p=0.032 and p=0.040, respectively), and showed a higher hemoglobin level (p=0.007). Oncologic outcomes were comparable between the groups. Conclusion The PG-DTR for EGC located in the upper stomach offered advantages of fewer complications, lower incidence of anemia and vitamin B12 deficiency, less decrease in visceral fat volume, and similar survival compared to TG. Consequently, PG-DTR may be considered a superior alternative treatment option to TG.

Background: Pain assessment and patient education are essential for successful postoperative pain management. However, the provision of personnel for performing these tasks is often insufficient. Recently, attempts have been made to implement smartphone applications for educating and monitoring surgical patients. We developed a smartphone application (app) for postoperative pain management, and conducted a feasibility study. Methods: This single-center prospective observational study included 60 patients aged < 70 years who underwent elective surgery. This study evaluated the SmartAPS application, which offers tools for postoperative pain assessment and educational materials for pain management. The primary outcome was the active usage rate, defined as responding at least twice daily on postoperative days (PODs) 1 and 2. Additionally, we investigated patient satisfaction with the app and educational videos as well as any challenges encountered during use. Results: Sixty patients were enrolled in the study and active app use was achieved in 56.7% of them. Response rates peaked at 85.0% for pain intensity and 83.3% for opioid-related side effects at 14:00 on POD 1 but dropped to 56.7% and 58.3%, respectively, at 18:00 on POD 2. Among the patients who responded to the survey regarding the app usage, 84.0% reported satisfaction with the app and 80% found it beneficial for managing postoperative pain. Furthermore, 92.0% did not encounter difficulties using the app, indicating a generally positive user experience. Conclusions Our findings support the utility of the SmartAPS application in acute pain services, highlighting its potential for improving postoperative pain management.

Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone (160 mg/day) compared to quetiapine XR (QXR; 600 mg/day) in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 160 mg/day (n=105) or QXR 600 mg/day (n=105). Primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score. Adverse events, body measurements, and laboratory parameters were assessed. Results: Lurasidone demonstrated non-inferiority to QXR on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean±standard error change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -26.42±2.02 and -27.33±2.01 in the lurasidone and QXR group, respectively. The mean difference score was -0.91 (95% confidence interval -6.35–4.53). The lurasidone group showed a greater reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale on week 1 and a greater reduction in end-point CGI-S score compared to the QXR group. Body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference in the lurasidone group were reduced, with significantly lower mean change compared to QXR. Endpoint changes in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels were also significantly lower. The most common adverse drug reactions with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Conclusion Lurasidone 160 mg/day was found to be non-inferior to QXR 600 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia with comparable efficacy and tolerability. Adverse effects of lurasidone were generally tolerable, and beneficial effects on metabolic parameters can be expected.

Background: Pain assessment and patient education are essential for successful postoperative pain management. However, the provision of personnel for performing these tasks is often insufficient. Recently, attempts have been made to implement smartphone applications for educating and monitoring surgical patients. We developed a smartphone application (app) for postoperative pain management, and conducted a feasibility study. Methods: This single-center prospective observational study included 60 patients aged < 70 years who underwent elective surgery. This study evaluated the SmartAPS application, which offers tools for postoperative pain assessment and educational materials for pain management. The primary outcome was the active usage rate, defined as responding at least twice daily on postoperative days (PODs) 1 and 2. Additionally, we investigated patient satisfaction with the app and educational videos as well as any challenges encountered during use. Results: Sixty patients were enrolled in the study and active app use was achieved in 56.7% of them. Response rates peaked at 85.0% for pain intensity and 83.3% for opioid-related side effects at 14:00 on POD 1 but dropped to 56.7% and 58.3%, respectively, at 18:00 on POD 2. Among the patients who responded to the survey regarding the app usage, 84.0% reported satisfaction with the app and 80% found it beneficial for managing postoperative pain. Furthermore, 92.0% did not encounter difficulties using the app, indicating a generally positive user experience. Conclusions Our findings support the utility of the SmartAPS application in acute pain services, highlighting its potential for improving postoperative pain management.

Background: Pain assessment and patient education are essential for successful postoperative pain management. However, the provision of personnel for performing these tasks is often insufficient. Recently, attempts have been made to implement smartphone applications for educating and monitoring surgical patients. We developed a smartphone application (app) for postoperative pain management, and conducted a feasibility study. Methods: This single-center prospective observational study included 60 patients aged < 70 years who underwent elective surgery. This study evaluated the SmartAPS application, which offers tools for postoperative pain assessment and educational materials for pain management. The primary outcome was the active usage rate, defined as responding at least twice daily on postoperative days (PODs) 1 and 2. Additionally, we investigated patient satisfaction with the app and educational videos as well as any challenges encountered during use. Results: Sixty patients were enrolled in the study and active app use was achieved in 56.7% of them. Response rates peaked at 85.0% for pain intensity and 83.3% for opioid-related side effects at 14:00 on POD 1 but dropped to 56.7% and 58.3%, respectively, at 18:00 on POD 2. Among the patients who responded to the survey regarding the app usage, 84.0% reported satisfaction with the app and 80% found it beneficial for managing postoperative pain. Furthermore, 92.0% did not encounter difficulties using the app, indicating a generally positive user experience. Conclusions Our findings support the utility of the SmartAPS application in acute pain services, highlighting its potential for improving postoperative pain management.

Background: Pain assessment and patient education are essential for successful postoperative pain management. However, the provision of personnel for performing these tasks is often insufficient. Recently, attempts have been made to implement smartphone applications for educating and monitoring surgical patients. We developed a smartphone application (app) for postoperative pain management, and conducted a feasibility study. Methods: This single-center prospective observational study included 60 patients aged < 70 years who underwent elective surgery. This study evaluated the SmartAPS application, which offers tools for postoperative pain assessment and educational materials for pain management. The primary outcome was the active usage rate, defined as responding at least twice daily on postoperative days (PODs) 1 and 2. Additionally, we investigated patient satisfaction with the app and educational videos as well as any challenges encountered during use. Results: Sixty patients were enrolled in the study and active app use was achieved in 56.7% of them. Response rates peaked at 85.0% for pain intensity and 83.3% for opioid-related side effects at 14:00 on POD 1 but dropped to 56.7% and 58.3%, respectively, at 18:00 on POD 2. Among the patients who responded to the survey regarding the app usage, 84.0% reported satisfaction with the app and 80% found it beneficial for managing postoperative pain. Furthermore, 92.0% did not encounter difficulties using the app, indicating a generally positive user experience. Conclusions Our findings support the utility of the SmartAPS application in acute pain services, highlighting its potential for improving postoperative pain management.

Background: Pain assessment and patient education are essential for successful postoperative pain management. However, the provision of personnel for performing these tasks is often insufficient. Recently, attempts have been made to implement smartphone applications for educating and monitoring surgical patients. We developed a smartphone application (app) for postoperative pain management, and conducted a feasibility study. Methods: This single-center prospective observational study included 60 patients aged < 70 years who underwent elective surgery. This study evaluated the SmartAPS application, which offers tools for postoperative pain assessment and educational materials for pain management. The primary outcome was the active usage rate, defined as responding at least twice daily on postoperative days (PODs) 1 and 2. Additionally, we investigated patient satisfaction with the app and educational videos as well as any challenges encountered during use. Results: Sixty patients were enrolled in the study and active app use was achieved in 56.7% of them. Response rates peaked at 85.0% for pain intensity and 83.3% for opioid-related side effects at 14:00 on POD 1 but dropped to 56.7% and 58.3%, respectively, at 18:00 on POD 2. Among the patients who responded to the survey regarding the app usage, 84.0% reported satisfaction with the app and 80% found it beneficial for managing postoperative pain. Furthermore, 92.0% did not encounter difficulties using the app, indicating a generally positive user experience. Conclusions Our findings support the utility of the SmartAPS application in acute pain services, highlighting its potential for improving postoperative pain management.