Purpose: Declines in masticatory function have been reported to be closely associated with cognitive impairment and reduced brain activity in older adults. This study aimed to investigate the effects of intraoral vibratory stimulation on masticatory function, cognitive performance, and brain activity in elderly individuals and to evaluate its potential efficacy. Materials and Methods: Participants were divided into a vibration-stimulation group (n=9) and a non-vibration control group (n=7). Baseline assessments were conducted at the first visit. Participants then received either vibratory stimulation or a wash-out (control) condition for two weeks, followed by the same assessments at the final visit. Evaluation measures were dental assessments (maximum bite force, masticatory performance, and salivary flow rate), cognitive tests (CANTAB, paper-based and computerized tests), quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during a short-term memory task. Results: No significant long-term effects or statistically meaningful differences were observed between the two groups in cognitive performance or brain activity. Similarly, no pre- to post-intervention differences were found between groups in dental measures related to masticatory function (maximum bite force, masticatory performance, and salivary flow rate). Due to the limited sample size, this study functioned as a pilot study focusing on descriptive rather than inferential statistical analysis. Conclusion Intraoral vibratory stimulation did not demonstrate immediate or clear effects on cognitive function or brain activity in older adults, suggesting the need for optimization of stimulation parameters such as location and intensity. Future studies with larger sample sizes and improved stimulation methods replicating masticatory function are warranted to further explore the potential cognitive benefits.

Rectal cancer, which accounts for approximately 40% of colorectal cancers, remains a major clinical concern. Recent advances in diagnostic imaging, surgical techniques, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment have steadily improved rectal cancer outcomes. Considering this, the Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary (KRCM) Committee has aimed to provide clinicians and policymakers with up-to-date, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to support optimal decision-making, reflecting current evidence, the Korean healthcare context, and patient values and preferences. The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0 were developed through multidisciplinary collaboration with related academic societies, building upon and updating the KRCM Clinical Practice Guidelines version 1.0 (titled “Multidisciplinary guidelines for the management of rectal cancer”). These consensus guidelines of the KRCM were established based on a comprehensive literature review, evidence synthesis, with recommendation development guided by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, and consideration of applicability in real-world clinical practice under the national health insurance system. Each recommendation has been presented with its strength and level of evidence.

Background: Spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) are used to reduce pain and improve quality of life in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). However, many patients opt for device removal after SCS implantation due to diminished effect or complications. There is limited research on the actual duration of SCS use in CRPS patients, and no nationwide population-based studies exist. This study aimed to estimate the real-world duration of SCS use in CRPS patients and examine the influencing factors on the duration of SCS use by analyzing the National Healthcare Insurance Database. Methods: Adult patients (age ≥ 18) with CRPS who underwent permanent SCS implantation between 2014 and2021 were included. The authors analyzed the median duration of SCS implantation and evaluated the impacts of age, sex, hospital type, and insurance type. Results: Of 408 potential patients, 373 patients were included. The median duration of SCS use was 4.4 (95%confidence interval [CI]: 4.0–4.8) years. Male patients retained SCSs longer than female patients (4.7 vs. 4.0 years, P = 0.014), and veterans’ healthcare beneficiaries showed the longest duration of SCS use (median 6.9 [95% CI: 4.6–7.8] years). Age and hospital type did not affect the duration of SCS use (P = 0.381 and P = 0.122, respectively). Conclusions The median SCS use duration in CRPS patients was 4.4 years. Considering the high cost and invasiveness of SCS, patients should be informed about the expected duration of SCS use, alongside potential risks and benefits.

Background: Spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) are used to reduce pain and improve quality of life in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). However, many patients opt for device removal after SCS implantation due to diminished effect or complications. There is limited research on the actual duration of SCS use in CRPS patients, and no nationwide population-based studies exist. This study aimed to estimate the real-world duration of SCS use in CRPS patients and examine the influencing factors on the duration of SCS use by analyzing the National Healthcare Insurance Database. Methods: Adult patients (age ≥ 18) with CRPS who underwent permanent SCS implantation between 2014 and2021 were included. The authors analyzed the median duration of SCS implantation and evaluated the impacts of age, sex, hospital type, and insurance type. Results: Of 408 potential patients, 373 patients were included. The median duration of SCS use was 4.4 (95%confidence interval [CI]: 4.0–4.8) years. Male patients retained SCSs longer than female patients (4.7 vs. 4.0 years, P = 0.014), and veterans’ healthcare beneficiaries showed the longest duration of SCS use (median 6.9 [95% CI: 4.6–7.8] years). Age and hospital type did not affect the duration of SCS use (P = 0.381 and P = 0.122, respectively). Conclusions The median SCS use duration in CRPS patients was 4.4 years. Considering the high cost and invasiveness of SCS, patients should be informed about the expected duration of SCS use, alongside potential risks and benefits.

Background: Spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) are used to reduce pain and improve quality of life in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). However, many patients opt for device removal after SCS implantation due to diminished effect or complications. There is limited research on the actual duration of SCS use in CRPS patients, and no nationwide population-based studies exist. This study aimed to estimate the real-world duration of SCS use in CRPS patients and examine the influencing factors on the duration of SCS use by analyzing the National Healthcare Insurance Database. Methods: Adult patients (age ≥ 18) with CRPS who underwent permanent SCS implantation between 2014 and2021 were included. The authors analyzed the median duration of SCS implantation and evaluated the impacts of age, sex, hospital type, and insurance type. Results: Of 408 potential patients, 373 patients were included. The median duration of SCS use was 4.4 (95%confidence interval [CI]: 4.0–4.8) years. Male patients retained SCSs longer than female patients (4.7 vs. 4.0 years, P = 0.014), and veterans’ healthcare beneficiaries showed the longest duration of SCS use (median 6.9 [95% CI: 4.6–7.8] years). Age and hospital type did not affect the duration of SCS use (P = 0.381 and P = 0.122, respectively). Conclusions The median SCS use duration in CRPS patients was 4.4 years. Considering the high cost and invasiveness of SCS, patients should be informed about the expected duration of SCS use, alongside potential risks and benefits.

Background: Spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) are used to reduce pain and improve quality of life in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). However, many patients opt for device removal after SCS implantation due to diminished effect or complications. There is limited research on the actual duration of SCS use in CRPS patients, and no nationwide population-based studies exist. This study aimed to estimate the real-world duration of SCS use in CRPS patients and examine the influencing factors on the duration of SCS use by analyzing the National Healthcare Insurance Database. Methods: Adult patients (age ≥ 18) with CRPS who underwent permanent SCS implantation between 2014 and2021 were included. The authors analyzed the median duration of SCS implantation and evaluated the impacts of age, sex, hospital type, and insurance type. Results: Of 408 potential patients, 373 patients were included. The median duration of SCS use was 4.4 (95%confidence interval [CI]: 4.0–4.8) years. Male patients retained SCSs longer than female patients (4.7 vs. 4.0 years, P = 0.014), and veterans’ healthcare beneficiaries showed the longest duration of SCS use (median 6.9 [95% CI: 4.6–7.8] years). Age and hospital type did not affect the duration of SCS use (P = 0.381 and P = 0.122, respectively). Conclusions The median SCS use duration in CRPS patients was 4.4 years. Considering the high cost and invasiveness of SCS, patients should be informed about the expected duration of SCS use, alongside potential risks and benefits.

Background: Spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) are used to reduce pain and improve quality of life in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). However, many patients opt for device removal after SCS implantation due to diminished effect or complications. There is limited research on the actual duration of SCS use in CRPS patients, and no nationwide population-based studies exist. This study aimed to estimate the real-world duration of SCS use in CRPS patients and examine the influencing factors on the duration of SCS use by analyzing the National Healthcare Insurance Database. Methods: Adult patients (age ≥ 18) with CRPS who underwent permanent SCS implantation between 2014 and2021 were included. The authors analyzed the median duration of SCS implantation and evaluated the impacts of age, sex, hospital type, and insurance type. Results: Of 408 potential patients, 373 patients were included. The median duration of SCS use was 4.4 (95%confidence interval [CI]: 4.0–4.8) years. Male patients retained SCSs longer than female patients (4.7 vs. 4.0 years, P = 0.014), and veterans’ healthcare beneficiaries showed the longest duration of SCS use (median 6.9 [95% CI: 4.6–7.8] years). Age and hospital type did not affect the duration of SCS use (P = 0.381 and P = 0.122, respectively). Conclusions The median SCS use duration in CRPS patients was 4.4 years. Considering the high cost and invasiveness of SCS, patients should be informed about the expected duration of SCS use, alongside potential risks and benefits.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Purpose: This report offers a detailed examination of the inception and current state of the Heavy-ion Therapy Center (HITC) at the Yonsei Cancer Center (YCC), setting it apart as the world’s first center equipped with a fixed beam and two superconducting gantries for carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT). Materials and Methods: Preparations for CIRT at YCC began in 2013; accordingly, this center has completed a decade of meticulous planning and culminating since the operational commencement of the HITC in April 2023. Results: This report elaborates on the clinical preparation for adopting CIRT in Korea. It includes an extensive description of HITC’s facility layout at YCC, which comprises the accelerator and treatment rooms. Furthermore, this report delineates the clinical workflow, criteria for CIRT application, and the rigorous quality assurance processes implemented at YCC. It highlights YCC’s sophisticated radiation therapy infrastructure, collaborative initiatives, and the efficacious treatment of >200 prostate cancer cases utilizing CIRT. Conclusion This manuscript concludes by discussing the prospective influence of CIRT on the medical domain within Korea, spotlighting YCC’s pioneering contribution and forecasting the widespread integration of this groundbreaking technology.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.