Background: s/Aims: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is the standard treatment for periampullary tumors, but it is technically challenging. Evidence directly comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic, and hybrid approaches is limited. This study conducts a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of open PD (OPD), laparoscopic PD (LPD), robotic PD (RPD), and hybrid PD. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between January 1994 and August 2024.We included randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies that evaluated at least two PD approaches. Perioperative outcomes were the primary endpoints, while oncologic safety served as a secondary endpoint. A random-effects NMA was performed, establishing treatment hierarchies through ranking probabilities (PROSPERO ID: CRD420250365864). Results: A total of 78 studies were included (5 randomized and 73 retrospective). RPD was associated with lower blood loss compared to OPD (mean difference [MD], –163.85 mL) and LPD (MD, –84.14 mL). Hospital stays were also shorter for RPD compared to OPD (MD, –2.50 days) and LPD (MD, –1.88 days). In contrast, OPD was the most time-efficient approach compared to LPD (MD, –77.61 minutes) and RPD (MD, –73.30 minutes). Mortality rates, severe complications, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, and reoperation rates were comparable across all surgical approaches. In terms of oncologic safety, lymph node yield and R0 resection rates were similar for all modalities. Conclusions While OPD is the most time-efficient approach, RPD provides significant advantages in reducing intraoperative blood loss and shortening hospital stays compared to both LPD and OPD.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is the second most common primary liver cancer after hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, combined HCC-CCA is a rare malignancy exhibiting hepatocytic and cholangiocytic differentiation. For both tumors, R0 resection with regional lymph node dissection remains the only potentially curative treatment. Nevertheless, key aspects of surgical management remain controversial. In this narrative review, we synthesize contemporary evidence on the surgical management of intrahepatic CCA and combined HCC-CCA. We summarize current data on lymphadenectomy, safety, and oncologic comparability of minimally invasive vs. open surgery, and integration of liver hypertrophy techniques for major hepatectomy. We also review the emerging clinical experience with immune checkpoint inhibitor-based chemoimmunotherapy as a neoadjuvant treatment and conversion surgery for advanced disease. We highlight persisting knowledge gaps and propose practical perspectives to support individualized surgical planning for this heterogeneous disease.

Background: Shortage of organ donors in the Republic of Korea has become a major problem. To address this, it has been questioned whether heart transplant (HTx) allocation should be modified to reduce priority of older patients. We aimed to evaluate post-HTx outcomes according to recipient age and specific pre-HTx conditions using a nationwide prospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed clinical characteristics of 628 patients from the Korean Organ Transplant Registry who received HTx from January 2015 to December 2020. Enrolled recipients were divided into three groups according to age. We also included comorbidities including ambulatory status. Non-ambulatory status was defined as pre-HTx support with either extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement therapy, or mechanical ventilation. Results: Of the 628 patients, 195 were < 50 years, 322 were 50–64 years and 111 were ≥ 65years at transplant. Four hundred nine (65.1%) were ambulatory and 219 (34.9%) were nonambulatory. Older recipients tended to have more comorbidities, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and received older donors. Post-HTx survival was significantly lower in older recipients (P = 0.025) and recipients with non-ambulatory status (P < 0.001). However, in contrast to non-ambulatory recipients who showed significant survival differences according to the recipient’s age (P = 0.004), ambulatory recipients showed comparable outcomes (P = 0.465). Conclusion Our results do not support use of age alone as an allocation criterion. Transplant candidate age in combination with some comorbidities such as non-ambulatory status may identify patients at a sufficiently elevated risk at which suitability of HTx should be reconsidered.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic, disabling, and functional bowel disorder that significantly affects social functioning and reduces quality of life and increases social costs. The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility published clinical practice guidelines on the management of IBS based on a systematic review of the literature in 2017, and planned to revise these guidelines in light of new evidence on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of IBS. The current revised version of the guidelines is consistent with the previous version and targets adults diagnosed with or suspected of having IBS. These guidelines were developed using a combination of de novo and adaptation methods, with analyses of existing guidelines and discussions within the committee, leading to the identification of key clinical questions. Finally, the guidelines consisted of 22 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and risk factors of IBS, 4 regarding diagnostic modalities and strategies, 2 regarding general management, and 13 regarding medical treatment. For each statement, the advantages, disadvantages, and precautions were thoroughly detailed. The modified Delphi method was used to achieve expert consensus to adopt the core recommendations of the guidelines. These guidelines serve as a reference for clinicians (including primary care physicians, general healthcare providers, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients, helping them to make informed decisions regarding IBS management.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.