Purpose: We aimed to investigate the prevalence and genotype distribution of human papillomavirus (HPV) among Korean males and explore implications for targeted vaccination strategies. Materials and Methods: A total of 44,065 males underwent HPV testing between March 2014 and February 2022 using the Anyplex™ II HPV 28 system, detecting 19 high-risk (HR) and 9 low-risk (LR) HPV types. Additionally, data from 507 male patients at local clinic (2017–2022) were analyzed to compare genotype prevalence between those with (WAT group) and without (WAT X group) genital warts. Results: Overall HPV positivity was 59.1%. HPV 6 (33.3%) and HPV 11 (11.0%) were the most prevalent LR genotypes, while HPV 16 (5.2%) dominated HR infection. Multiple HPV genotype co-infection occurred in 49.3% of positive cases, with 11.3% involving multiple HR types. Younger males (teens, 20s) exhibited higher HR-HPV positivity, although total HPV positivity peaked in the 40s (60.1%). Non–9-valent HR genotypes (HPV 53, 51, 39, 66) accounted for 27.6%–35.0% of infections annually. At local clinic, HPV 43 was significantly associated with genital warts (p=0.017). Conclusions These data support including males in national HPV vaccination strategies using the current 9-valent vaccine and underscore the need for ongoing genotype surveillance to monitor non‑vaccine high‑risk types and inform public health policy, and support inclusion of males in national HPV vaccination strategies using the current 9‑valent vaccine.

Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Background and Objectives: Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is highly recommended in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), participation in CR is low mainly due to access barriers. Home-based CR (HBCR) has been recommended to overcome access barriers.Exercise is a core component of CR and should be developed and implemented based on individual characteristics. We aimed to assess physical activity behaviors, exercise preferences, and exercise barriers to understand physical activity characteristics of CVD patients. Methods: Participants were patients between the ages 19 to 75 years with a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or myocardial infarction (MI). They completed a cross-sectional survey at a tertiary hospital's outpatient clinic from April to June 2021. Survey data included physical activity levels, patterns, preference, and barriers of exercise. Results: Participants (n=189; 143 males, 46 females, 62.1±12.0 years) were diagnosed as either HFrEF (n=160, 84.7%) or a history of MI (n=97, 51.3%). Only 26.5% of patients engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise for more than 150 minutes per week. Participants preferred exercising alone or with families. Walking (65.6%) and resistance exercises (35.4%) were favored, with outdoor (37%) and home-based (30.2%) settings preferred over fitness centers (10.6%) and hospitals (0.5%). Barriers to exercise included fatigue (34.4%), poor health perception (31.7%), and low fitness levels (30.7%). Conclusions The results of this study can be used to develop tailored HBCR programs that consider individual preferences and address specific barriers, facilitating adequate physical activity engagement.

Background and Objectives: Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is highly recommended in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), participation in CR is low mainly due to access barriers. Home-based CR (HBCR) has been recommended to overcome access barriers.Exercise is a core component of CR and should be developed and implemented based on individual characteristics. We aimed to assess physical activity behaviors, exercise preferences, and exercise barriers to understand physical activity characteristics of CVD patients. Methods: Participants were patients between the ages 19 to 75 years with a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or myocardial infarction (MI). They completed a cross-sectional survey at a tertiary hospital's outpatient clinic from April to June 2021. Survey data included physical activity levels, patterns, preference, and barriers of exercise. Results: Participants (n=189; 143 males, 46 females, 62.1±12.0 years) were diagnosed as either HFrEF (n=160, 84.7%) or a history of MI (n=97, 51.3%). Only 26.5% of patients engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise for more than 150 minutes per week. Participants preferred exercising alone or with families. Walking (65.6%) and resistance exercises (35.4%) were favored, with outdoor (37%) and home-based (30.2%) settings preferred over fitness centers (10.6%) and hospitals (0.5%). Barriers to exercise included fatigue (34.4%), poor health perception (31.7%), and low fitness levels (30.7%). Conclusions The results of this study can be used to develop tailored HBCR programs that consider individual preferences and address specific barriers, facilitating adequate physical activity engagement.

Background and Objectives: Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is highly recommended in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), participation in CR is low mainly due to access barriers. Home-based CR (HBCR) has been recommended to overcome access barriers.Exercise is a core component of CR and should be developed and implemented based on individual characteristics. We aimed to assess physical activity behaviors, exercise preferences, and exercise barriers to understand physical activity characteristics of CVD patients. Methods: Participants were patients between the ages 19 to 75 years with a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or myocardial infarction (MI). They completed a cross-sectional survey at a tertiary hospital's outpatient clinic from April to June 2021. Survey data included physical activity levels, patterns, preference, and barriers of exercise. Results: Participants (n=189; 143 males, 46 females, 62.1±12.0 years) were diagnosed as either HFrEF (n=160, 84.7%) or a history of MI (n=97, 51.3%). Only 26.5% of patients engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise for more than 150 minutes per week. Participants preferred exercising alone or with families. Walking (65.6%) and resistance exercises (35.4%) were favored, with outdoor (37%) and home-based (30.2%) settings preferred over fitness centers (10.6%) and hospitals (0.5%). Barriers to exercise included fatigue (34.4%), poor health perception (31.7%), and low fitness levels (30.7%). Conclusions The results of this study can be used to develop tailored HBCR programs that consider individual preferences and address specific barriers, facilitating adequate physical activity engagement.