Purpose: The clinical utility of routine repeat computed tomography (CT) in pediatric patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains controversial. We aimed to identify factors associated with worsening intracranial injury (ICI) on repeat CT in pediatric patients with mild TBI. Methods: This retrospective study included patients aged 0–18 years with mild TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale score 13–15) who presented to an emergency department in South Korea from January 2017 through December 2023. Patients were included if they underwent an initial CT within 24 hours of injury and a repeat CT within 72 hours. Worsening ICI was defined as an increase in hemorrhage size or the development of new lesions on repeat CT. Clinical characteristics, injury mechanisms, and CT findings were compared between patients with and without the worsening ICI. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of worsening ICI on repeat CT. Results: A total of 212 patients were included, of whom 48 (22.6%) showed worsening ICIs on repeat CT (i.e., worsening group). The worsening group showed higher median values of age and length of hospital stay, as well as higher percentages of initial Glasgow Coma Scale of 14, motorcycle/bicycle injury, intensive care unit hospitalization, and abnormalities on initial CT (including skull fracture, epidural hemorrhage, subdural hemorrhage, and pneumocephalus), compared with their counterparts. The regression model showed subdural hemorrhage (odds ratio, 4.99 [95% confidence interval, 2.08–11.96]), epidural hemorrhage (4.04 [1.73–9.44]), and motorcycle/bicycle as the injury mechanism (2.94 [1.14–7.59]) as the predictors. Conclusion In pediatric mild TBI, motorcycle/bicycle accidents and the presence of hemorrhages on initial CT may be associated with worsening ICI on repeat CT. These findings support a risk-stratified approach, in which repeat imaging is selectively considered for high-risk patients to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure.

Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is a stroke subtype with high mortality and poor functional outcomes. Prompt occlusion of a ruptured aneurysm at an early stage is crucial to prevent rebleeding, which can result in even higher mortality and more severe disabilities. The most critical initial decision in SAH management is the choice of treatment method with surgical clipping or endovascular coiling. We aimed to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline to select the optimal initial treatment in patients with SAH. We developed this guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted across four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and KoreaMed) to answer two population, intervention, comparison, outcome questions comparing clipping and coiling. The risk of bias was assessed using ROB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagrams and meta-analyses were generated for functional outcome and mortality. We included six randomized control trials (RCTs) and 58 observational studies. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed that coiling improved functional outcomes compared to clipping (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.97). No significant mortality difference was observed in RCTs (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.91–2.09), but non-RCTs favored clipping for reduced mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69–0.86). However, it is difficult to generalize these findings to all clinical situations, as patients with SAH have a highly variable clinical course. Final treatment decision should be tailored to the individual patient’s status, including aneurysm location, morphology, and the expertise available at the treatment center. Such decisions are best made by specialists such as a board-certified physician and should be explained to the patient and their caregivers, along with the rationale for selecting the most appropriate treatment at the given hospital. Korea has many certified endovascular neurosurgeons, cerebrovascular surgeons, and certified cerebrovascular centers. Proper selection of the most suitable treatment method by certified physicians and centers would greatly benefit patient outcomes and healthcare professionals.

Accurate and early identification of stroke and large vessel occlusion (LVO) in emergency settings is essential for improving patient outcomes and ensuring the efficient allocation of medical resources. This clinical practice guideline systematically reviews domestic and international literature and conducts meta-analyses to evaluate the utility and diagnostic accuracy of stroke assessment tools used in prehospital emergency medical services (EMS). We developed a guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of diagnostic EMS assessment tools for diagnosing stroke and LVO. Overall, 70 non-randomized control studies were selected for this study. A meta-analysis was conducted with a subgroup analysis to distinguish between patients with stroke and those with LVO. EMS tools demonstrated high sensitivity but low specificity for diagnosing stroke. In the prehospital setting, using validated EMS stroke assessment tools is recommended for the early identification of stroke and LVO. Upon hospital arrival, stroke specialists should conduct further evaluation and triage to confirm the diagnosis and guide appropriate management. Delays in diagnosing LVO are frequently unacceptable. While experts advocate for the use of EMS assessment tools to facilitate early identification of LVO, these tools alone lack adequate sensitivity. Therefore, further diagnostic evaluations and consultation with stroke specialists upon hospital arrival are recommended.

The mothership (MS) model, where patients are directly transferred to a thrombectomy-capable center, and the drip-and-ship (DS) model, where thrombolysis is initiated at the nearest primary stroke center before transfer for thrombectomy, are the primary transport modes for patients with stroke. We aimed to establish guidelines for selecting the appropriate transfer strategy based on emergent large vessel occlusion (LVO). We developed this guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted across four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and KoreaMed) to answer three Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions comparing MS and DS models. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagrams and meta-analyses were generated for functional outcomes, mortality, and successful recanalization. Twenty-six non-randomized controlled studies showed that the MS model improved good functional outcomes by approximately 14% compared with the DS model (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–1.30). Fifteen studies reported that mortality in the MS and DS models showed no significant differences (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84–1.11). Twenty-four studies revealed no significant difference in successful recanalization between the MS and DS models (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68–1.10). The MS model should be considered first to improve the functional outcome of patients with LVO. However, if thrombectomy cannot be performed immediately after thrombolysis, or if a thrombectomy-enabled hospital is not nearby, the DS model should be considered by stroke specialists depending on transportation time and regional factors. We suggest a mixed approach with the DS model based on specific circumstances or regions to ensure the optimum treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Appropriate transport for patients with LVO improves the prognosis of AIS.

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: 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.