Background: Laser procedures are integral to dermatologic practice, yet safety measures- particularly regarding ocular protection and plume control- are poorly studied in real-world settings. Objective: To evaluate current practices in eye protection, infection control, and occupational risk awareness among Korean dermatologists performing laser treatments. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among board-certified dermatologists at the 2024 Korean Society for Dermatologic Laser Surgery meeting. The questionnaire covered demographics, laser frequency, use of goggles and masks, infection control strategies, ophthalmologic monitoring, and history of warts or cancer. Results: Seventy-nine respondents completed the survey. All reported using protective goggles, but only 26.6% and 22.8% did so for CO 2 and erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet lasers, respectively. Only 24.1% underwent regular eye exams, and 13.9% reported eye conditions after starting laser practice. While 89.9% used masks, 40.8% used dental masks, which are inadequate for plume protection. Suction devices were used by 94.9%, though performance specifications were unclear. Warts were reported by 46.8% of respondents; two reported cancer diagnoses after initiating laser work. Conclusion Despite high overall adherence to basic safety practices, critical gaps remain. Our findings highlight the need for standardized guidelines and long-term occupational health monitoring to ensure safe laser practice.

Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by erythema, papules, ocular symptoms, and heightened sensitivity. Patients with neurogenic symptoms such as burning or stinging remain particularly difficult to manage. Current guidelines often underrepresent energy-based devices (EBDs), pigmentary sequelae, psychosocial burden, and ocular comorbidities. Objective: To examine Korean dermatologists’ expert perspectives on rosacea management, focusing on skin sensitivity, neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary changes, psychosocial impact, ocular involvement, and EBD use. Methods: A web-based, 29-item survey was administered to 25 board-certified Korean dermatologists (May–June 2025). Quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed. Results: Erythematotelangiectatic and papulopustular phenotypes with sensitivity skin predominated. EBDs (pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light) were frequently used but limited by cost and sensitivity issues. Neurogenic symptoms were recognized but rarely treated with neuromodulators. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent, yet monitoring was inconsistent.Psychosocial and ocular aspects were acknowledged but seldomly systematically addressed.Respondents expressed interest in emerging adjunctive treatments such as cold plasma, skin boosters, and holistic care approaches. Conclusion Korean dermatologists adopt individualized strategies for rosacea, yet practice gaps remain regarding neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary complications, and psychosocial and ocular comorbidities. Findings support the need for updated multidisciplinary, phenotype-driven guidelines aligned with real-world practice.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Aging adversely impacts thermoregulatory function, thereby increasing the risk of intraoperative hypothermia. Age-associated alterations-including diminished thermal perception, impaired autonomic responsiveness, reduced thermogenic capacity due to sarcopenia, and decreased cardiovascular adaptability, exacerbate the vulnerability to hypothermia. Concomitant comorbidities and polypharmacy further compromise thermal homeostasis in geriatric patients. Anesthetic agents compound this risk by lowering the thresholds for vasoconstriction and shivering and attenuating the magnitude of thermal responses. Consequently, geriatric populations are predisposed to significant perioperative temperature decline, particularly in cooler operating room (OR) environments. Intraoperative hypothermia is associated with an increased incidence of adverse outcomes, including increased cardiac events, surgical site infections, coagulopathy, protracted pharmacodynamic effects, extended recovery, and hospitalization duration. Although recent investigations suggest a diminished incidence of hypothermia due to minimally invasive surgical techniques and enhanced temperature management protocols, the intrinsic susceptibility of the aged thermoregulatory system persists. Effective temperature management requires precise core temperature monitoring and maintains appropriate OR temperatures. Furthermore, the implementation of multimodal warming strategies, including passive insulation, active warming modalities, warming of intravenous fluids, and prewarming before anesthesia induction, is critical. Therefore, a comprehensive and proactive thermal management approach is essential in mitigating hypothermia-related risks and optimizing perioperative outcomes in the geriatric patients.

Background: Skin rejuvenation has become an increasingly popular noninvasive approach to address age-related changes such as sagging, wrinkles, and skin laxity. Energy-based devices (EBDs) and injectables are widely used, but their application requires careful customization based on individual patient characteristics to optimize outcomes and minimize potential adverse effects. Objective: This study aimed to explore clinical practice patterns among board-certified dermatologists in South Korea, focusing on their strategies for tailoring skin rejuvenation treatments to individual patients, including the integration of EBDs, injectables, and senotherapeutics. Methods: A structured survey comprising 10 questions was administered to 13 experienced dermatologists specializing in skin rejuvenation. The survey covered treatment strategies for patients with varying facial fat volumes, pain management approaches, and the use of EBDs, injectables and senotherapeutics. Results: High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and radiofrequency (RF) were the most employed EBDs, often combined with injectables for enhanced outcomes. For patients with higher facial fat, HIFU and deoxycholic acid injections were preferred for contouring and tightening. For those with lower facial fat, biostimulatory agents such as poly-D, L-lactic acid and microneedle RF were favored to restore volume and elasticity. Pain management strategies included topical anesthetics and stepwise protocols. Although less commonly used, senotherapeutics were occasionally prescribed for specific conditions, such as melasma and extensive photoaging. Conclusion Dermatologists in South Korea employ a variety of patient-specific strategies for skin rejuvenation, combining various EBDs, injectables, and senotherapeutics. These findings highlight the importance of personalized treatment protocols and the need for further research to optimize treatment efficacy and safety.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Objective: With advances in endoscopic surgery, L5–S1 foraminotomy has become a readily accessible surgical technique. However, symptom relief is often short-lived, and recurrence is common. As an alternative, biportal endoscopic fusion at L5–S1 can improve symptoms. However, it can be challenging and may lead to fusion-related complications. Therefore, we aimed to compare 2 procedures for L5–S1 foraminal stenosis. Methods: A total of 37 patients diagnosed with L5–S1 foraminal stenosis were divided into 2 groups for this study. Group 1, comprising 18 patients, underwent L5–S1 foraminotomy via a paraspinal approach from 2017 to 2019. Group 2, comprising 19 patients, underwent biportal endoscopic L5–S1 fusion with the facet-sacrificing approach from January 2021 to August 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of both groups was conducted using various metrics, including image findings, operation time, hospital stay, visual analogue score (VAS) back, VAS leg, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the MacNab criteria. Postsurgical complications were meticulously recorded. The statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and differences between the 2 surgical approaches were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Results: No statistically significant difference was found in VAS back or ODI improvement between the 2 groups. However, the foraminotomy group exhibited a statistically significant advantage in terms of operation time and hospital stay. Conversely, the fusion group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in VAS leg and McNab criteria in comparison to the foraminotomy group. The most prevalent complication observed in the foraminotomy group was early symptom recurrence, while the fusion group experienced complications related to screw-related issues and infections. Conclusion Leg symptoms recurred more frequently in the foraminotomy group. Biportal endoscopic facet-sacrificing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery has been demonstrated to be a valuable technique for L5–S1 fusion with lower recurrence of leg symptoms; however, it is associated with complications specific to fusion.