Coronary CT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) is a noninvasive alternative to invasive FFR for assessing the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery stenosis. CT-FFR uses routinely acquired coronary CT angiography (CCTA) with artificial intelligence and computational fluid dynamics to estimate pressure gradients, thereby supporting clinical decisionmaking without procedural risk. Adoption and implementation vary widely across regions. In Asia, South Korea exclusively uses HeartMedi+, which enables rapid analysis, streamlined workflow integration, and high user satisfaction. Japan relies primarily on FFR CT, which has national reimbursement and significantly influences treatment strategies, reducing unnecessary invasive procedures. Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam remain in early or exploratory phases due to cost, reimbursement, and infrastructure barriers. In the United States, CT-FFR is guideline-endorsed and reimbursed, where HeartFlow is the most widely used, supported by robust clinical validation and outcome data. Despite regional variability, CTFFR offers a noninvasive solution that enhances patient management, reduces unnecessary invasive testing, and is poised for broader clinical integration as technology and validation advance.

Objective: To explain process of developing basic veterinary clinical performance guidelines, based on frequently observable clinical manifestations, thereby supporting competencybased veterinary education in Korea. Methods: A structured review of learning outcomes established by Korean Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges (KAVMC) was conducted by a planning committee including veterinary educators, practitioners, and advisory members. Owner-oriented descriptions were used to frame each performance task, and each was mapped to corresponding learning outcomes. These tasks were aligned with learning outcomes recommended by the KAVMC to support the development of communication, clinical reasoning, and performance-related competencies among veterinary students, thereby enhancing day-one clinical readiness. Results: In total, 63 clinical manifestations for a guidebook format that can be used for clinical education were identified and categorized by organ systems that are described in language understandable to animal owners. Conclusions and Relevance: The basic veterinary clinical performance guidelines based on common clinical manifestations would serve as a vital component in veterinary education to reinforce core graduation competencies.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of the not evaluated (NE) group by comparing it with the lost to follow-up (LTFU) group among patients with multidrug/rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective longitudinal follow-up study using an integrated database constructed by data linkage of the three national databases. This database included 7226 cases of MDR/RR-TB notified between 2011 and 2017 in South Korea. Results: Among the 7226 MDR/RR-TB cases, 730 (10.1%) were classified as LTFU group, and 353 (4.9%) as NE group. When comparing NE group with LTFU group, there were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality rate (18.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.065), median time to death [404 days (interquartile range, IQR 46–850) vs. 443 days (IQR 185–1157), p=0.140], and retreatment rate (26.9% vs.22.2%, p=0.090). After adjusting for potential confounders, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality (aHR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; p=0.531) in NE group was not significantly different than that in LTFU group. Among retreated cases, NE group had a higher treatment success rate (57.9% vs 43.8%, p=0.029) and a lower LTFU rate (11.6% vs 38.3%, p<0.001) compared to LTFU group. Conclusion NE group had an unfavorable outcome comparable to LTFU group, suggesting undetected cases of LTFU or deaths during the referral process. Establishing an efficient patient referral system would contribute to reducing the incidence of NE cases.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of the not evaluated (NE) group by comparing it with the lost to follow-up (LTFU) group among patients with multidrug/rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective longitudinal follow-up study using an integrated database constructed by data linkage of the three national databases. This database included 7226 cases of MDR/RR-TB notified between 2011 and 2017 in South Korea. Results: Among the 7226 MDR/RR-TB cases, 730 (10.1%) were classified as LTFU group, and 353 (4.9%) as NE group. When comparing NE group with LTFU group, there were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality rate (18.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.065), median time to death [404 days (interquartile range, IQR 46–850) vs. 443 days (IQR 185–1157), p=0.140], and retreatment rate (26.9% vs.22.2%, p=0.090). After adjusting for potential confounders, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality (aHR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; p=0.531) in NE group was not significantly different than that in LTFU group. Among retreated cases, NE group had a higher treatment success rate (57.9% vs 43.8%, p=0.029) and a lower LTFU rate (11.6% vs 38.3%, p<0.001) compared to LTFU group. Conclusion NE group had an unfavorable outcome comparable to LTFU group, suggesting undetected cases of LTFU or deaths during the referral process. Establishing an efficient patient referral system would contribute to reducing the incidence of NE cases.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of the not evaluated (NE) group by comparing it with the lost to follow-up (LTFU) group among patients with multidrug/rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective longitudinal follow-up study using an integrated database constructed by data linkage of the three national databases. This database included 7226 cases of MDR/RR-TB notified between 2011 and 2017 in South Korea. Results: Among the 7226 MDR/RR-TB cases, 730 (10.1%) were classified as LTFU group, and 353 (4.9%) as NE group. When comparing NE group with LTFU group, there were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality rate (18.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.065), median time to death [404 days (interquartile range, IQR 46–850) vs. 443 days (IQR 185–1157), p=0.140], and retreatment rate (26.9% vs.22.2%, p=0.090). After adjusting for potential confounders, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality (aHR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; p=0.531) in NE group was not significantly different than that in LTFU group. Among retreated cases, NE group had a higher treatment success rate (57.9% vs 43.8%, p=0.029) and a lower LTFU rate (11.6% vs 38.3%, p<0.001) compared to LTFU group. Conclusion NE group had an unfavorable outcome comparable to LTFU group, suggesting undetected cases of LTFU or deaths during the referral process. Establishing an efficient patient referral system would contribute to reducing the incidence of NE cases.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of the not evaluated (NE) group by comparing it with the lost to follow-up (LTFU) group among patients with multidrug/rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective longitudinal follow-up study using an integrated database constructed by data linkage of the three national databases. This database included 7226 cases of MDR/RR-TB notified between 2011 and 2017 in South Korea. Results: Among the 7226 MDR/RR-TB cases, 730 (10.1%) were classified as LTFU group, and 353 (4.9%) as NE group. When comparing NE group with LTFU group, there were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality rate (18.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.065), median time to death [404 days (interquartile range, IQR 46–850) vs. 443 days (IQR 185–1157), p=0.140], and retreatment rate (26.9% vs.22.2%, p=0.090). After adjusting for potential confounders, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality (aHR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; p=0.531) in NE group was not significantly different than that in LTFU group. Among retreated cases, NE group had a higher treatment success rate (57.9% vs 43.8%, p=0.029) and a lower LTFU rate (11.6% vs 38.3%, p<0.001) compared to LTFU group. Conclusion NE group had an unfavorable outcome comparable to LTFU group, suggesting undetected cases of LTFU or deaths during the referral process. Establishing an efficient patient referral system would contribute to reducing the incidence of NE cases.