Background: A systematic evaluation of potential living liver donors is essential to ensure donor safety and optimize recipient outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to assess donor acceptance rates and reasons for disqualification among individuals evaluated for LDLT at a high-volume transplant center over a one-year period. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1,087 potential living liver donors who presented for LDLT evaluation in 2023. Of these, 991 candidates advanced beyond the initial screening (Stage 1) and underwent comprehensive clinical, imaging, and pathological assessments (Stages 2 and 3). Candidates who discontinued after Stage 1 were excluded due to the absence of documented reasons for non-progression. Results: Among the 991 candidates who proceeded beyond initial screening, 473 (47.7%) completed the full donor evaluation, of whom 466 were judged to be suitable donors. Among suitable donors, 384 (82.4%) proceeded to donor hepatectomy, whereas 82 did not, primarily due to recipient-related factors such as clinical deterioration or withdrawal of consent. Donor ineligibility was determined in 422 candidates (42.6%), most commonly due to inadequate remnant liver volume (52.8%), hepatic steatosis (20.6%), and insufficient graft size (10.2%). Among candidates undergoing Stage 2 evaluation, 162 (16.3%) failed to meet steatosis criteria; 126 were excluded solely for steatosis and advised weight reduction, and 39 subsequently became eligible and successfully donated. Conclusion In this high-volume LDLT center, donor disqualification was primarily driven by remnant liver volume and hepatic steatosis. Targeted interventions such as weight reduction enabled successful donation in a subset of initially ineligible candidates, underscoring the importance of individualized donor evaluation and pre-donation optimization.

Background: We developed a simplified variant of the ADV score, the AFP-PIVKAII (AP) score for post-transplant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prognosis, which considers only AFP and PIVKA-II levels excluding morphometric tumor size information from the ADV score. This study investigated the prognostic performance of the AP score in predicting HCC recurrence and overall survival (OS) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Methods: We analyzed 843 patients with HCC who underwent LDLT between 2006 and 2015, assessing HCC recurrence and OS in relation to AP score. Results: The median pretransplant AFP and PIVKA-II levels were 12.8 ng/mL and 27 mAU/mL, respectively. The median and mean AP scores were 2.6 log (range: 0.6–9.2 log) and 2.9±1.1 log, respectively. The 5-year time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the AP score in predicting post-transplant HCC recurrence was 0.672 (p<0.001). HCC recurrence and OS curves along AP score intervals of 1.0 log showed statistical differences in accordance with the AP scores (both p<0.001). Using a Youden index J-derived AP score cutoff of 4.0 log, two-tiered groups (ADV <4.0 log vs. ADV ≥4.0 log) showed statistically significant differences in HCC recurrence and OS (both p<0.001). Harrell’s c-indices for AP score with cutoff of 4.0 log and ADV scores with cutoff of 5.0 log regarding HCC recurrence and OS were similar. Conclusion The AP score functions as an integrated surrogate marker for predicting post-transplant outcomes in patients with HCC undergoing LDLT. It may serve as a simplified alternative to the ADV score, particularly in patients with small HCCs.

Background: Studies on whether donor-to-recipient sex match status affects long-term survival after liver transplantation (LT) have yielded contradictory results. This study evaluated whether donor-to-recipient sex match status influenced long-term survival after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) or deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) at a high-volume center. Methods: The study included 6,664 patients who underwent primary LT between January 2000 and December 2022 at our institution. Patients were divided into four groups according to donor-to-recipient sex match status: male-to-male (n=3,427 [51.4%]), male-to-female (n=1,152 [17.3%]), female-to-male (n=1,385 [20.8%]), and female-to-female (n=700 [10.5%]). Results: Regarding clinical characteristics, the four groups differed significantly regarding background liver disease (P<0.001), model for end-stage liver disease score (P<0.001), serum protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II level (P=0.003), presence of concurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; P<0.001), and type of LT (P=0.003). Overall survival (OS) of all LT recipients did not differ significantly among the groups (P=0.377). Donor-to-recipient sex match status did not affect long-term OS in either LDLT (P=0.176) or DDLT (P=0.220) groups. In addition, sex match status did not significantly influence posttransplant OS among patients who underwent LDLT without HCC (P=0.464), LDLT with HCC (P=0.236), DDLT without HCC (P=0.338), or DDLT with HCC (P=0.818). Conclusions Donor-to-recipient sex match status does not significantly affect posttransplant patient survival or HCC prognosis after LDLT or DDLT.

Background: Decreased acetabular version and posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head have been regarded as the leading causes of sport-related posterior hip dislocation or subluxation. This study aimed to examine the posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head in 21 patients who sustained posterior hip dislocation or subluxation during sport activities. Methods: The anterior and posterior acetabular rims on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images were delineated on the normal side in these patients. Radiologic signs, including crossover and posterior wall signs, were examined. The fracture center level (FCL) of the posterior acetabular wall was identified on axial CT images of the injured hip and the level was marked on the normal side. The difference in the femoral head coverage by posterior and anterior acetabular rims was measured by measuring the horizontal distance between anterior and posterior acetabular rims at the FCL (posterior-anterior [P-A] index). The acetabular version was measured at the femoral head and FCL using axial CT images of the normal side. Femoral head coverage by the posterior acetabular wall on the normal side was measured using 3D-CT (areal coverage). Results: The crossover and posterior wall signs were positive in 14 and 10 patients, respectively, in 3D-CT images. The FCL was evenly distributed in the proximal half of the posterior acetabular wall. Seven patients had a P-A index of ≤ 0, and all were positive for the crossover sign. The anterior acetabular rim was relatively prominent in these patients. The acetabular version was lower at the FCL than at the femoral head center (p < 0.001). The proximal half areal coverage of the posterior acetabular wall was significantly smaller than the whole areal coverage (p = 0.003). Conclusions Superior–posterior coverage of the femoral head by the posterior acetabular wall was insufficient in patients who sustained hip posterior dislocation or subluxation during sports activities.

Background: Decreased acetabular version and posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head have been regarded as the leading causes of sport-related posterior hip dislocation or subluxation. This study aimed to examine the posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head in 21 patients who sustained posterior hip dislocation or subluxation during sport activities. Methods: The anterior and posterior acetabular rims on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images were delineated on the normal side in these patients. Radiologic signs, including crossover and posterior wall signs, were examined. The fracture center level (FCL) of the posterior acetabular wall was identified on axial CT images of the injured hip and the level was marked on the normal side. The difference in the femoral head coverage by posterior and anterior acetabular rims was measured by measuring the horizontal distance between anterior and posterior acetabular rims at the FCL (posterior-anterior [P-A] index). The acetabular version was measured at the femoral head and FCL using axial CT images of the normal side. Femoral head coverage by the posterior acetabular wall on the normal side was measured using 3D-CT (areal coverage). Results: The crossover and posterior wall signs were positive in 14 and 10 patients, respectively, in 3D-CT images. The FCL was evenly distributed in the proximal half of the posterior acetabular wall. Seven patients had a P-A index of ≤ 0, and all were positive for the crossover sign. The anterior acetabular rim was relatively prominent in these patients. The acetabular version was lower at the FCL than at the femoral head center (p < 0.001). The proximal half areal coverage of the posterior acetabular wall was significantly smaller than the whole areal coverage (p = 0.003). Conclusions Superior–posterior coverage of the femoral head by the posterior acetabular wall was insufficient in patients who sustained hip posterior dislocation or subluxation during sports activities.

Background: Decreased acetabular version and posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head have been regarded as the leading causes of sport-related posterior hip dislocation or subluxation. This study aimed to examine the posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head in 21 patients who sustained posterior hip dislocation or subluxation during sport activities. Methods: The anterior and posterior acetabular rims on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images were delineated on the normal side in these patients. Radiologic signs, including crossover and posterior wall signs, were examined. The fracture center level (FCL) of the posterior acetabular wall was identified on axial CT images of the injured hip and the level was marked on the normal side. The difference in the femoral head coverage by posterior and anterior acetabular rims was measured by measuring the horizontal distance between anterior and posterior acetabular rims at the FCL (posterior-anterior [P-A] index). The acetabular version was measured at the femoral head and FCL using axial CT images of the normal side. Femoral head coverage by the posterior acetabular wall on the normal side was measured using 3D-CT (areal coverage). Results: The crossover and posterior wall signs were positive in 14 and 10 patients, respectively, in 3D-CT images. The FCL was evenly distributed in the proximal half of the posterior acetabular wall. Seven patients had a P-A index of ≤ 0, and all were positive for the crossover sign. The anterior acetabular rim was relatively prominent in these patients. The acetabular version was lower at the FCL than at the femoral head center (p < 0.001). The proximal half areal coverage of the posterior acetabular wall was significantly smaller than the whole areal coverage (p = 0.003). Conclusions Superior–posterior coverage of the femoral head by the posterior acetabular wall was insufficient in patients who sustained hip posterior dislocation or subluxation during sports activities.

Background: Decreased acetabular version and posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head have been regarded as the leading causes of sport-related posterior hip dislocation or subluxation. This study aimed to examine the posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head in 21 patients who sustained posterior hip dislocation or subluxation during sport activities. Methods: The anterior and posterior acetabular rims on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images were delineated on the normal side in these patients. Radiologic signs, including crossover and posterior wall signs, were examined. The fracture center level (FCL) of the posterior acetabular wall was identified on axial CT images of the injured hip and the level was marked on the normal side. The difference in the femoral head coverage by posterior and anterior acetabular rims was measured by measuring the horizontal distance between anterior and posterior acetabular rims at the FCL (posterior-anterior [P-A] index). The acetabular version was measured at the femoral head and FCL using axial CT images of the normal side. Femoral head coverage by the posterior acetabular wall on the normal side was measured using 3D-CT (areal coverage). Results: The crossover and posterior wall signs were positive in 14 and 10 patients, respectively, in 3D-CT images. The FCL was evenly distributed in the proximal half of the posterior acetabular wall. Seven patients had a P-A index of ≤ 0, and all were positive for the crossover sign. The anterior acetabular rim was relatively prominent in these patients. The acetabular version was lower at the FCL than at the femoral head center (p < 0.001). The proximal half areal coverage of the posterior acetabular wall was significantly smaller than the whole areal coverage (p = 0.003). Conclusions Superior–posterior coverage of the femoral head by the posterior acetabular wall was insufficient in patients who sustained hip posterior dislocation or subluxation during sports activities.

Objective: Primary frozen shoulder causes significant pain and progressively restricts shoulder movements. Diagnosis is made clinically based on patient history and physical examination. Management is mainly non-invasive owing to its self-limiting clinical course. However, clinical practice guidelines for frozen shoulder have not yet been developed in Korea. The developed guidelines aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of frozen shoulder. Methods: A guideline development committee reviewed the literature from four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KMbase). Using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) framework, the committee formulated two backgrounds and 16 key questions to address common clinical concerns. Recommendations were made using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Results: Diabetes, thyroid disease, and dyslipidemia significantly increase the risk of developing a frozen shoulder. Although frozen shoulder is often self-limiting, some patients may experience long-term functional disabilities. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging should be used as adjunctive tools alongside clinical diagnosis, and rather than as independent diagnostic methods. Noninvasive approaches, such as medications, physical modalities, exercises, electrical stimulation, and manual therapy, may reduce pain and improve shoulder function. Other noninvasive interventions have limited evidence, and their application should be based on clinical judgment. Intra-articular steroid injections are recommended for treatment, and physiotherapy or hydrodilation with steroid injections can also be beneficial. Conclusion These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating primary frozen shoulder.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

Purpose: This study aimed to describe adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure and evaluate its clinical significance by comparing its surgical and survival outcomes with those of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 267 consecutive patients (161 LDLT recipients and 106 DDLT recipients) aged 18 years or older who underwent liver transplantation between January 2006 and December 2020. Results: The mean periods from hepatic encephalopathy to liver transplantation were 5.85 days and 8.35 days for LDLT and DDLT, respectively (P = 0.091). Among these patients, 121 (45.3%) had grade III or IV hepatic encephalopathy (living, 34.8% vs. deceased, 61.3%; P < 0.001), and 38 (14.2%) had brain edema (living, 16.1% vs. deceased, 11.3%; P = 0.269) before liver transplantation. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (living, 11.8% vs. deceased, 15.1%; P = 0.435), 10-year overall survival (living, 90.8% vs. deceased, 84.0%; P = 0.096), and graft survival (living, 83.5% vs. deceased, 71.3%;P = 0.051). However, postoperatively, the mean intensive care unit stay was shorter in the LDLT group (5.0 days vs. 9.5 days, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was associated with vasopressor use (odds ratio [OR], 3.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45–7.96; P = 0.005) and brain edema (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.16–6.52; P = 0.022) of recipient at the time of transplantation. However, LDLT (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.59–2.66; P = 0.553) was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Conclusion LDLT is feasible for acute liver failure when organs from deceased donors are not available.