Background: Acne vulgaris commonly affects both the face and trunk, yet truncal acne remains underrecognized and less studied in adolescents. Objective: This study aimed to assess the prevalence, perceived severity, stress levels, treatment behaviors, and willingness to seek care in adolescents based on acne location. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 211 first-year high school students (104 males, 107 females) in Incheon, South Korea. A structured questionnaire captured data on acne location, severity, stress, treatment history, and willingness to seek care. Analyses included descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, t-tests, and Spearman correlation. Results: Facial acne was reported by 86.7% of participants and truncal acne by 47.4%. The presence of facial and truncal acne was significantly associated (p<0.05), with truncal acne developing approximately one year after facial acne onset (p<0.05). While the mean subjective severity scores for facial (1.61±0.63) and truncal acne (1.57±0.79) were similar (p>0.05), stress levels were significantly higher for facial acne (p<0.05). Treatment rates were substantially lower for truncal acne (17.6%) compared to facial acne (48.6%), despite comparable willingness to seek clinical care. Conclusion Truncal acne is common but undertreated in adolescents. Despite comparable willingness to seek care, actual treatment rates remain low, underscoring a critical gap in management. Given the significant co-occurrence and risk of sequelae, clinicians should routinely assess for truncal acne in adolescents with facial acne and adopt a holistic management strategy addressing both areas.

Purpose: Technological advancements have enabled reduced-port robotic systems, enhancing the benefits of robotic surgery. This study compared the surgical outcomes of conventional multiport (5 ports), single-site (2 ports), and singleport (2 ports) robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods: A prospectively collected database was retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy between January 2010 and August 2022 at Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System. The initial 20 cases from each group (multiport, single-site, and SP) were analyzed, focusing on demographics, surgical procedures, pathological results, and postoperative outcomes. The “textbook outcome” metric was employed to assess surgical quality. Results: The SP group showed lower visual analog pain scale compared to the multiport and single-site groups (3.5, 4.4, and 4.3, respectively, P = 0.017), faster time to first flatus (2.0, 2.7, and 2.8 days, respectively; P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (3.5, 6.2, and 5.5 days, respectively; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in major complications, unplanned intensive care unit care, readmission, or mortality between the groups. The rate of patients achieving textbook outcomes were 85.0% for the multiport group, 100% for the single-site group, and 95.0% for the SP group (P = 0.310). Conclusion Reduced-port robotic gastrectomy, including single-site and SP, has shown surgical safety with a high proportion of patients meeting textbook outcomes. The SP system demonstrated less pain and faster recovery, aligning with minimally invasive surgical goals. Therefore, the SP system could be a reliable and safe option for robotic gastrectomy, offering enhanced recovery without compromising surgical quality.

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.

Purpose: Although laparoscopic distal gastrectomy has rapidly replaced open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is less frequently performed owing to technical difficulties. Robotic surgery could be an appropriate minimally invasive alternative to LTG because it alleviates the technical challenges posed by laparoscopic procedures.However, few studies have compared the oncological safety of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) with that of LTG, especially for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Herein, we aimed to assess the oncological outcomes of RTG for AGC and compare them with those of LTG. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 147 and 204 patients who underwent RTG and LTG for AGC, respectively, between 2007 and 2020. Long-term outcomes were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: After IPTW, the 2 groups exhibited similar clinicopathological features. The 5-year overall survival was comparable between the 2 groups (88.5% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 79.4%–93.7%] after RTG and 87.3% [95% CI, 80.1%–92.0%]) after LTG; log-rank P=0.544).The hazard ratio (HR) for death after RTG compared with that after LTG was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.40–1.33; P=0.304). The 5-year relapse-free survival was also similar between the 2 groups (75.7% [95% CI, 65.2%–83.4%] after RTG and 76.4% [95% CI, 67.9%–83.0%] after LTG; logrank P=0.850). The HR for recurrence after RTG compared with that after LTG was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.60–1.46; P=0.753). Conclusions Our findings revealed that RTG and LTG for AGC had similar long-term outcomes. RTG is an oncologically safe alternative to LTG and has technical advantages.

Objectives: This study analyzed the current state of community mental health programs in Korea to develop evidence-based criteria for these programs. Methods: Seventy community mental health facilities nationwide were surveyed about the scope of their operated mental health programs. Details, including program structure, staff expertise, standardization, and quality management, of the 511 programs submitted by the facilities as their representative programs were also analyzed to evaluate their efforts for evidence-based practice. Results: The average number of programs operated by community mental health welfare centers was 15.9. The most common programs were those related to serious mental illness (SMI), followed by child/adolescent mental health programs, early psychosis programs, and non-SMI adult mental health programs. In the case of community addiction management centers, there were 7.2 different addiction-related programs per center. Among the psychiatric rehabilitation facilities for SMI, the average number of programs for SMI was 13.1, with some programs for early psychosis. Of the 511 programs submitted as representative programs in their facilities, only 12.3% were judged to be good evidence-based programs. Conclusion More efforts by mental health professionals and governments are needed to implement evidence-based programs in Korea.

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.