1.Shared decision-making and physicians’ duty to explain and their ethical and legal implications for the reduction of medical litigation risk: a narrative review
Journal of the Korean Medical Association 2026;69(1):69-75
Shared decision-making (SDM) is a core element of patient-centered care; however, traditional approaches to informed consent and physicians’ duty to explain have often remained procedural and predominantly physician-driven. This review aims to examine how SDM substantively strengthens the physician’s duty to explain and how it may contribute to reducing medical litigation risk while simultaneously improving patient–physician relationships.Current concepts: SDM is a collaborative process in which patients and physicians jointly consider available treatment options, relevant medical evidence, and patients’ individual values and preferences. Evidence from systematic reviews indicates that SDM improves patients’ knowledge, promotes more realistic expectations, reduces decisional conflict, and enhances satisfaction and trust. From a legal perspective, inadequate communication and information asymmetry constitute major contributors to medical disputes. By emphasizing meaningful dialogue, documenting deliberative processes, and incorporating patient decision aids, SDM reframes informed consent from a largely formal requirement into an interactive process that supports patients’ substantive understanding and autonomous decision-making.Discussion and conclusion: Although direct evidence demonstrating that SDM reduces medical errors remains limited, existing findings suggest that SDM may mitigate structural causes of medical disputes by addressing communication failures and unmet patient expectations. By reinforcing the physician’s duty to explain in a substantive and patient-centered manner and by fostering a trust-based therapeutic alliance, SDM has the potential to reduce medical litigation risk. Integrating SDM into routine clinical practice through education, institutional support, and supportive legal frameworks may represent an emerging standard for fulfilling physicians’ duty to explain and for promoting sustainable patient–physician relationships.
2.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
3.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
4.Comparing Stability, Gait, and Functional Score after 40-mm Dual-Mobility Hip Arthroplasty to 36-mm Head Hip Arthroplasty in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients
Yonghan CHA ; Sang-Yeob LEE ; Ji-Ho BAE ; Yang Jae KANG ; Ji-Hoon BAEK ; Joon Soon KANG ; Chan Ho PARK ; Shinjune KIM ; Jun-Il YOO
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(1):62-70
Background:
This study aimed to compare the intraoperative stability and early clinical outcomes of 40-mm diameter dual mobility (DM)-total hip arthroplasty (THA) with 36-mm ceramic head (large head) THA in active elderly patients with hip fractures.
Methods:
A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from May 2022 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 60 years, displaced femoral neck fracture, Koval grade 1 or 2, planned 54-mm acetabular component, and over 1-year follow-up. Intraoperative stability tests were performed on all patients (internal rotation at 45°, 60°, and 90° of hip fracture). Functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score and University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] Score) were evaluated at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Gait analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques was conducted at 3 months postoperatively.
Results:
The study included 36 DM-THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 2.2 years; 44% women) and 37 large head THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 1.2 years; 64% women). No statistically significant differences were observed in functional outcomes and hip range of motion between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference in the gait speed and stance-swing phase of the large head THA group and the DM-THA group: the DM-THA group demonstrated superior gait speed (2.85 ± 0.83 kph vs. 2.04 ± 1.04 kph, p = 0.003) and higher stance phase ratios (operated side: 63.57% ± 3.82% vs. 48.19% ± 5.50%, p < 0.001; opposite side: 62.77% ± 2.27% vs. 49.93% ± 6.94%, p < 0.001). In the stability test at 90° of hip flexion, the DM-THA group had a measurement of 48.40° ± 5.17°, while the large head THA group had a measurement of 30.94° ± 2.98° (p = 0.012). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the intraoperative stability test showed the dislocation angle was notably different between the groups in the hip flexion position of 60° (51.60° ± 6.09° in the DM-THA group and 40.00° ± 2.80° in the large head THA group, p = 0.072).
Conclusions
Superior results were observed in the intraoperative stability test and early recovery of gait after DM-THA compared to large head THA. We believe that DM-THA can be a useful surgical option for THA in elderly patients with hip fractures.
5.Comparing Stability, Gait, and Functional Score after 40-mm Dual-Mobility Hip Arthroplasty to 36-mm Head Hip Arthroplasty in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients
Yonghan CHA ; Sang-Yeob LEE ; Ji-Ho BAE ; Yang Jae KANG ; Ji-Hoon BAEK ; Joon Soon KANG ; Chan Ho PARK ; Shinjune KIM ; Jun-Il YOO
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(1):62-70
Background:
This study aimed to compare the intraoperative stability and early clinical outcomes of 40-mm diameter dual mobility (DM)-total hip arthroplasty (THA) with 36-mm ceramic head (large head) THA in active elderly patients with hip fractures.
Methods:
A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from May 2022 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 60 years, displaced femoral neck fracture, Koval grade 1 or 2, planned 54-mm acetabular component, and over 1-year follow-up. Intraoperative stability tests were performed on all patients (internal rotation at 45°, 60°, and 90° of hip fracture). Functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score and University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] Score) were evaluated at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Gait analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques was conducted at 3 months postoperatively.
Results:
The study included 36 DM-THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 2.2 years; 44% women) and 37 large head THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 1.2 years; 64% women). No statistically significant differences were observed in functional outcomes and hip range of motion between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference in the gait speed and stance-swing phase of the large head THA group and the DM-THA group: the DM-THA group demonstrated superior gait speed (2.85 ± 0.83 kph vs. 2.04 ± 1.04 kph, p = 0.003) and higher stance phase ratios (operated side: 63.57% ± 3.82% vs. 48.19% ± 5.50%, p < 0.001; opposite side: 62.77% ± 2.27% vs. 49.93% ± 6.94%, p < 0.001). In the stability test at 90° of hip flexion, the DM-THA group had a measurement of 48.40° ± 5.17°, while the large head THA group had a measurement of 30.94° ± 2.98° (p = 0.012). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the intraoperative stability test showed the dislocation angle was notably different between the groups in the hip flexion position of 60° (51.60° ± 6.09° in the DM-THA group and 40.00° ± 2.80° in the large head THA group, p = 0.072).
Conclusions
Superior results were observed in the intraoperative stability test and early recovery of gait after DM-THA compared to large head THA. We believe that DM-THA can be a useful surgical option for THA in elderly patients with hip fractures.
6.Comparing Stability, Gait, and Functional Score after 40-mm Dual-Mobility Hip Arthroplasty to 36-mm Head Hip Arthroplasty in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients
Yonghan CHA ; Sang-Yeob LEE ; Ji-Ho BAE ; Yang Jae KANG ; Ji-Hoon BAEK ; Joon Soon KANG ; Chan Ho PARK ; Shinjune KIM ; Jun-Il YOO
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(1):62-70
Background:
This study aimed to compare the intraoperative stability and early clinical outcomes of 40-mm diameter dual mobility (DM)-total hip arthroplasty (THA) with 36-mm ceramic head (large head) THA in active elderly patients with hip fractures.
Methods:
A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from May 2022 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 60 years, displaced femoral neck fracture, Koval grade 1 or 2, planned 54-mm acetabular component, and over 1-year follow-up. Intraoperative stability tests were performed on all patients (internal rotation at 45°, 60°, and 90° of hip fracture). Functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score and University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] Score) were evaluated at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Gait analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques was conducted at 3 months postoperatively.
Results:
The study included 36 DM-THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 2.2 years; 44% women) and 37 large head THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 1.2 years; 64% women). No statistically significant differences were observed in functional outcomes and hip range of motion between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference in the gait speed and stance-swing phase of the large head THA group and the DM-THA group: the DM-THA group demonstrated superior gait speed (2.85 ± 0.83 kph vs. 2.04 ± 1.04 kph, p = 0.003) and higher stance phase ratios (operated side: 63.57% ± 3.82% vs. 48.19% ± 5.50%, p < 0.001; opposite side: 62.77% ± 2.27% vs. 49.93% ± 6.94%, p < 0.001). In the stability test at 90° of hip flexion, the DM-THA group had a measurement of 48.40° ± 5.17°, while the large head THA group had a measurement of 30.94° ± 2.98° (p = 0.012). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the intraoperative stability test showed the dislocation angle was notably different between the groups in the hip flexion position of 60° (51.60° ± 6.09° in the DM-THA group and 40.00° ± 2.80° in the large head THA group, p = 0.072).
Conclusions
Superior results were observed in the intraoperative stability test and early recovery of gait after DM-THA compared to large head THA. We believe that DM-THA can be a useful surgical option for THA in elderly patients with hip fractures.
7.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
8.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
9.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
10.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail