Purpose: Hereditary spastic paraplegia (HSP) refers to a group of genetic neurodegenerative diseases marked by gradually worsening spasticity and hyperreflexia in the lower extremities. This study aimed to describe the clinical and genetic characteristics of Korean patients with spastic paraplegia. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 69 patients with spastic paraplegia from 54 unrelated families between 2002 and 2024. Genetic, clinical, electrophysiological, and radiological features were comprehensively analyzed. Results: Causative genes were identified in 34 (63%) of 54 unrelated families; SPAST, detected in 26 families, was the most prevalent. Seven novel pathogenic variants were identified. Clinically, the median age of symptom onset was 25 years [14.0–37.0]. Out of 69 patients with spastic paraplegia, 51 (74%) presented with the pure form of spastic paraplegia, which included all patients with SPG4. Spastic gait was a universal feature in all patients. Urinary dysfunction was present in 42 (61%) patients. Additional neurologic manifestations included peripheral neuropathy 9 (13%), cognitive impairment 5 (7%), upper limb weakness 4 (6%), dysarthria 4 (6%), dysphagia 3 (4%), ataxia 3 (4%), and scoliosis 1 (3%). Brain MRI findings demonstrated a thin corpus callosum in two patients with SPG11; all patients with SPG4 had normal findings. Spine MRI revealed spinal cord atrophy in 16 (27%) patients, including 6 (21%) patients with SPG4. Conclusion The study comprehensively reviewed genetic and clinical spectra of spastic paraplegia in Korean patients, emphasizing the predominance of SPAST as the causative gene and underscoring the genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity of spastic paraplegia.

Purpose: Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma. Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance. Results: The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups. Conclusion Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.

Purpose: Tracheal resection with end-to-end anastomosis (TREE) has many advantages over conservative treatment in terms of long-term results; however, this method requires improved safety and accessibility. We aimed to combine expanded venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during TREE surgery. Materials and Methods: Between May 2006 and December 2022, 41 patients diagnosed with tracheal stenosis or tracheal tumors underwent TREE. The non-ECMO and ECMO groups were classified based on the presence or absence of intraoperative ECMO support. Results: Reconstruction length was slightly longer in the ECMO group than in the non-ECMO group, but there was no statistical significance (p=0.082). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of operative time (p=0.698), estimated blood loss (p=0.210), and duration of mechanical ventilation (p=0.713). There was a significant difference in intensive care unit stay between the two groups (p=0.013) due to the postoperative maintenance of ECMO. There were no cases of early mortality in either group during hospitalization (p>0.999). Conclusion ECMO support could assist in more challenging cases as it makes surgery easier in difficult patient scenarios.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the precision of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing and intraoperative colonoscopic tumor localization in determining distal surgical margins for leftsided colorectal cancer surgery. Methods: This retrospective study included 30 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery, preoperative colonoscopic tattooing, and intraoperative colonoscopic localization for colorectal cancer at our center between July 2020 and March 2024. Clinical data were collected, and the precision of these methods was assessed by measuring the differences between the target resection margin and the actual pathological resection margin. Results: In four patient cases, the indocyanine green tattoo was not visible in the laparoscopic surgical field. The average stained length of the tattoo was 2.89 cm, with a mean distance of 1.18 cm between the low margin of the tattoo and the cancer. The difference between the target distal resection margin by intraoperative colonoscopic localization and the actual pathological resection margin was 0.88 cm. No complications related to the intraoperative colonoscopy were observed. Conclusion Preoperative tattooing showed limitations, such as spreading and occasional invisibility. Intraoperative colonoscopic localization proved to be an effective method for achieving more precise distal surgical margins in left-sided colorectal cancer surgery.

Purpose: Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma. Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance. Results: The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups. Conclusion Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.

Purpose: Tracheal resection with end-to-end anastomosis (TREE) has many advantages over conservative treatment in terms of long-term results; however, this method requires improved safety and accessibility. We aimed to combine expanded venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during TREE surgery. Materials and Methods: Between May 2006 and December 2022, 41 patients diagnosed with tracheal stenosis or tracheal tumors underwent TREE. The non-ECMO and ECMO groups were classified based on the presence or absence of intraoperative ECMO support. Results: Reconstruction length was slightly longer in the ECMO group than in the non-ECMO group, but there was no statistical significance (p=0.082). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of operative time (p=0.698), estimated blood loss (p=0.210), and duration of mechanical ventilation (p=0.713). There was a significant difference in intensive care unit stay between the two groups (p=0.013) due to the postoperative maintenance of ECMO. There were no cases of early mortality in either group during hospitalization (p>0.999). Conclusion ECMO support could assist in more challenging cases as it makes surgery easier in difficult patient scenarios.

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the precision of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing and intraoperative colonoscopic tumor localization in determining distal surgical margins for leftsided colorectal cancer surgery. Methods: This retrospective study included 30 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery, preoperative colonoscopic tattooing, and intraoperative colonoscopic localization for colorectal cancer at our center between July 2020 and March 2024. Clinical data were collected, and the precision of these methods was assessed by measuring the differences between the target resection margin and the actual pathological resection margin. Results: In four patient cases, the indocyanine green tattoo was not visible in the laparoscopic surgical field. The average stained length of the tattoo was 2.89 cm, with a mean distance of 1.18 cm between the low margin of the tattoo and the cancer. The difference between the target distal resection margin by intraoperative colonoscopic localization and the actual pathological resection margin was 0.88 cm. No complications related to the intraoperative colonoscopy were observed. Conclusion Preoperative tattooing showed limitations, such as spreading and occasional invisibility. Intraoperative colonoscopic localization proved to be an effective method for achieving more precise distal surgical margins in left-sided colorectal cancer surgery.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.