Purpose: This study evaluated the early outcomes of hyperopic small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using the VisuMax 800 femtosecond laser in a South Korean cohort, focusing on safety, efficacy, refractive predictability, and centration accuracy. Methods: This retrospective study included 11 eyes from seven patients who underwent hyperopic SMILE using the VisuMax 800 between December 1, 2024, and October 31, 2025, at Onnuri Eye Hospital in Jeonju, South Korea. All eyes completed at least 3 months of postoperative follow-up. Preoperative and postoperative evaluations included uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refraction, tomography, and wavefront aberrometry. Outcomes were analyzed using the standard nine graphs for refractive surgery. Astigmatic changes were assessed using the Alpins vector method. Optical zone decentration was calculated using postoperative Placido-Scheimpflug topography. Results: The median preoperative spherical equivalent (SEQ) was +2.50 diopters (D) (interquartile range [IQR], 1.94–4.12 D). At 3 months, eight eyes (72.7%) were within ±0.50 D and all eyes (100%) were within ±1.00 D of the residual SEQ. The median efficacy index was 0.90 (IQR, 0.80–0.95). CDVA was unchanged in 63.6% of eyes and decreased by one line in 36.4%; no eye lost two or more lines. The median safety index was 0.86 (IQR, 0.80–1.00). Root mean square higher-order aberrations (RMS HOA) increased by +0.38 μm (IQR, 0.09–0.52 μm). The median vertex-based decentration was 0.064 mm (IQR, 0.036–0.091 mm). Decentration demonstrated a significant positive correlation with RMS HOA (rho = 0.709, p = 0.014). Conclusions Hyperopic SMILE using the VisuMax 800 produced favorable early clinical outcomes with high centration accuracy as well as shorter surgical time. Larger prospective studies with longer follow-up are necessary to determine long-term stability.

Background/Aims: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a rare malignancy with poor prognosis. We investigated genomic determinants of clinical benefit from gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel (GAP) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in advanced BTC. Methods: Clinical and genomic data using TruSight Oncology 500 were analyzed from patients treated with GAP (N=198) or GC (N=89) as first-line therapy. Results: With a median follow-up of 33.0 months, GAP modestly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.764; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.591–0.989) without significant overall survival (OS) difference compared to GC. Genomic profiling revealed frequent alterations in TP53 (35.2%), KRAS (16.4%), SMAD4 (10.5%), and TNFRSF14 (10.5%), involving RTK/RAS (44.3%), TP53 (41.8%), and PI3K (20.2%) pathways. Single-gene mutations did not predict treatment benefit. However, pathway-level analysis identified PI3K pathway activation as significantly associated with inferior PFS (HR 2.148; 95% CI 1.478–3.124) and OS (HR 2.096; 95% CI 1.413–3.109) in patients receiving GAP, an effect not observed with GC. Importantly, GAP conferred clinical benefit only in patients without PI3K pathway activation, while no survival advantage was seen in those with such alterations (Pinteraction=0.023 for PFS, Pinteraction=0.003 for OS). Similar results were obtained in the independent validation cohort treated with GAP (N=103) or GC (N=64) for BTC. Conclusions Genomic profiling using next-generation sequencing identified PI3K pathway activation as key molecular determinant that differentiates patient outcomes between GAP and GC treatments in advanced BTC.

Hepatic angiomyolipoma is a rare benign tumor that often mimics hepatocellular carcinoma on imaging. Here, we report a rare case of hepatic angiomyolipoma with extensive hemorrhagic degeneration, resulting in a large hemorrhagic component that mimicked a complicated cystic neoplasm. A 43-year-old woman presented with mild abdominal distension, and imaging revealed a 16-cm multiloculated cystic mass in the left hepatic lobe. Computed tomography revealed a thick, enhancing wall and septa with hyperattenuating internal fluid. On gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, arterial enhancement was observed along the thick wall, and a subtle opposedphase signal drop indicated a small fat component that was initially missed. Laparoscopic left lobectomy was performed under suspicion of a malignant cystic neoplasm. Histopathological examination revealed an angiomyolipoma composed of thick-walled vessels, spindle-shaped muscle bundles, and scant adipocytes, with human melanoma black 45 positivity and absence of an epithelial lining, consistent with hemorrhagic degeneration. This case highlights how hemorrhagic degeneration can pose a significant diagnostic challenge by masking the typical features of hepatic angiomyolipoma, leading to diagnostic confusion with complicated cystic tumors.

Background: The removal of a well-fixed acetabular cup is a challenging, labor-intensive, and time-consuming step during revision hip arthroplasty. Although the advent of the manual osteotome, Explant, has simplified the procedure, it is still a stressful process as it dissipates the surgeon’s strength and time and risks an iatrogenic pelvic fracture. Recently, EZX, a powered tool for extraction of well-fixed acetabular cups with semicircular blade was invented. This study aimed to compare Explant and EZX in an experimental condition for their efficacy and safety. Methods: Cementless acetabular cups were press-fitted to 20 hemipelvic polyurethane models using foam adhesives. Ten cups were removed with each tool for comparison of the elapsed time, loads on the entire hemipelvis, periacetabular strain and temperature, volume of periacetabular bone removed, and diameter of the remaining acetabular rim. Strains and loads were quantitatively assessed using strain gauges and load cells for precise and reliable measurements. Results: The mean duration required to remove a well-fixed cup with EZX was 38.5 seconds (range, 25–55), whereas that with Explant was 543.7 seconds (range, 214–1,051) (p < 0.001). The load on the entire hemipelvis with EZX (mean, 9.1 kgf; range, 6.4–11.3) was 33% lower than that with Explant (mean, 13.6 kgf; range, 9.2–17.1) (p < 0.001). The periacetabular peak strains at the 3 positions with EZX were significantly lower than those with Explant (p < 0.001). The temperature during the removal did not differ significantly between the 2 tools. Although the mean volume of bone loss with Explant was 2.4 mL more than that with EZX (p < 0.001), the mean diameters of the remaining acetabular rim were not significantly different, measuring 54.1 mm with both tools. Conclusions The present experiment revealed that a well-fixed cup could be removed using a powered tool with less strength and time and less load on the entire pelvis. Although the powered tool removed a larger volume of bone, the diameters of the remaining acetabular rims were equivalent. This tool may help surgeons remove well-fixed cups in a short time and reduce the deforming load on the bone around the cup without increasing the size of the subsequent reconstruction cup.

Background: The removal of a well-fixed acetabular cup is a challenging, labor-intensive, and time-consuming step during revision hip arthroplasty. Although the advent of the manual osteotome, Explant, has simplified the procedure, it is still a stressful process as it dissipates the surgeon’s strength and time and risks an iatrogenic pelvic fracture. Recently, EZX, a powered tool for extraction of well-fixed acetabular cups with semicircular blade was invented. This study aimed to compare Explant and EZX in an experimental condition for their efficacy and safety. Methods: Cementless acetabular cups were press-fitted to 20 hemipelvic polyurethane models using foam adhesives. Ten cups were removed with each tool for comparison of the elapsed time, loads on the entire hemipelvis, periacetabular strain and temperature, volume of periacetabular bone removed, and diameter of the remaining acetabular rim. Strains and loads were quantitatively assessed using strain gauges and load cells for precise and reliable measurements. Results: The mean duration required to remove a well-fixed cup with EZX was 38.5 seconds (range, 25–55), whereas that with Explant was 543.7 seconds (range, 214–1,051) (p < 0.001). The load on the entire hemipelvis with EZX (mean, 9.1 kgf; range, 6.4–11.3) was 33% lower than that with Explant (mean, 13.6 kgf; range, 9.2–17.1) (p < 0.001). The periacetabular peak strains at the 3 positions with EZX were significantly lower than those with Explant (p < 0.001). The temperature during the removal did not differ significantly between the 2 tools. Although the mean volume of bone loss with Explant was 2.4 mL more than that with EZX (p < 0.001), the mean diameters of the remaining acetabular rim were not significantly different, measuring 54.1 mm with both tools. Conclusions The present experiment revealed that a well-fixed cup could be removed using a powered tool with less strength and time and less load on the entire pelvis. Although the powered tool removed a larger volume of bone, the diameters of the remaining acetabular rims were equivalent. This tool may help surgeons remove well-fixed cups in a short time and reduce the deforming load on the bone around the cup without increasing the size of the subsequent reconstruction cup.

Background: The removal of a well-fixed acetabular cup is a challenging, labor-intensive, and time-consuming step during revision hip arthroplasty. Although the advent of the manual osteotome, Explant, has simplified the procedure, it is still a stressful process as it dissipates the surgeon’s strength and time and risks an iatrogenic pelvic fracture. Recently, EZX, a powered tool for extraction of well-fixed acetabular cups with semicircular blade was invented. This study aimed to compare Explant and EZX in an experimental condition for their efficacy and safety. Methods: Cementless acetabular cups were press-fitted to 20 hemipelvic polyurethane models using foam adhesives. Ten cups were removed with each tool for comparison of the elapsed time, loads on the entire hemipelvis, periacetabular strain and temperature, volume of periacetabular bone removed, and diameter of the remaining acetabular rim. Strains and loads were quantitatively assessed using strain gauges and load cells for precise and reliable measurements. Results: The mean duration required to remove a well-fixed cup with EZX was 38.5 seconds (range, 25–55), whereas that with Explant was 543.7 seconds (range, 214–1,051) (p < 0.001). The load on the entire hemipelvis with EZX (mean, 9.1 kgf; range, 6.4–11.3) was 33% lower than that with Explant (mean, 13.6 kgf; range, 9.2–17.1) (p < 0.001). The periacetabular peak strains at the 3 positions with EZX were significantly lower than those with Explant (p < 0.001). The temperature during the removal did not differ significantly between the 2 tools. Although the mean volume of bone loss with Explant was 2.4 mL more than that with EZX (p < 0.001), the mean diameters of the remaining acetabular rim were not significantly different, measuring 54.1 mm with both tools. Conclusions The present experiment revealed that a well-fixed cup could be removed using a powered tool with less strength and time and less load on the entire pelvis. Although the powered tool removed a larger volume of bone, the diameters of the remaining acetabular rims were equivalent. This tool may help surgeons remove well-fixed cups in a short time and reduce the deforming load on the bone around the cup without increasing the size of the subsequent reconstruction cup.

Background: The removal of a well-fixed acetabular cup is a challenging, labor-intensive, and time-consuming step during revision hip arthroplasty. Although the advent of the manual osteotome, Explant, has simplified the procedure, it is still a stressful process as it dissipates the surgeon’s strength and time and risks an iatrogenic pelvic fracture. Recently, EZX, a powered tool for extraction of well-fixed acetabular cups with semicircular blade was invented. This study aimed to compare Explant and EZX in an experimental condition for their efficacy and safety. Methods: Cementless acetabular cups were press-fitted to 20 hemipelvic polyurethane models using foam adhesives. Ten cups were removed with each tool for comparison of the elapsed time, loads on the entire hemipelvis, periacetabular strain and temperature, volume of periacetabular bone removed, and diameter of the remaining acetabular rim. Strains and loads were quantitatively assessed using strain gauges and load cells for precise and reliable measurements. Results: The mean duration required to remove a well-fixed cup with EZX was 38.5 seconds (range, 25–55), whereas that with Explant was 543.7 seconds (range, 214–1,051) (p < 0.001). The load on the entire hemipelvis with EZX (mean, 9.1 kgf; range, 6.4–11.3) was 33% lower than that with Explant (mean, 13.6 kgf; range, 9.2–17.1) (p < 0.001). The periacetabular peak strains at the 3 positions with EZX were significantly lower than those with Explant (p < 0.001). The temperature during the removal did not differ significantly between the 2 tools. Although the mean volume of bone loss with Explant was 2.4 mL more than that with EZX (p < 0.001), the mean diameters of the remaining acetabular rim were not significantly different, measuring 54.1 mm with both tools. Conclusions The present experiment revealed that a well-fixed cup could be removed using a powered tool with less strength and time and less load on the entire pelvis. Although the powered tool removed a larger volume of bone, the diameters of the remaining acetabular rims were equivalent. This tool may help surgeons remove well-fixed cups in a short time and reduce the deforming load on the bone around the cup without increasing the size of the subsequent reconstruction cup.

Background: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

Background: Swallowing of foreign bodies (FBs) is the most common indication of therapeutic endoscopy in children. Endoscopic removal may be necessary depending on the type of FB, age of the child, and location of the FB. We attempted to analyze the characteristics of each device used for the endoscopic removal of FBs in children. Methods: Medical records of the patient’s age, sex, weight, type, location, size, shape, type of device used for endoscopic removal, and endoscopic time were retrospectively collected. Results: A total of 424 FB removal procedures were analyzed. The average age of the patients at the time of FB removal was 4.1 ± 3.7 years. Coins were the most common FBs (192, 45.3%). The most common locations of the FBs were the esophagus (45.7%) and the stomach (48.3%), respectively. For a total of 371 cases, forceps were used in 96 cases (25.9%) for esophageal FBs and in 25 cases for gastric FBs (6.7%), while nets were used in 250 cases (67.4%) for gastric FBs retrieval; the average durations of the procedures were 7.2 ± 7.4 minutes, 8.5 ± 7.2 minutes, and 5.7 ± 7.3 minutes, respectively (P = 0.003). The procedure time was significantly shorter, in the group of patients with low body weights, when nets were used than when forceps were used to remove gastric FBs (P = 0.001). Conclusion The endoscopic procedure duration, in low-weight children, was shorter when retrieval nets were used than that with forceps.

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of patients given an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) (Isopure; PhysIOL, Liege, Belgium), and monofocal, and trifocal IOLs. Methods: Patients who underwent cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of monofocal Vivinex IOLs, enhanced monofocal Isopure IOLs, and trifocal Panoptix IOLs were included. Three months postoperatively, the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), and near visual acuity (UNVA), as well as the spherical equivalent (SE) were determined. Photic symptoms were explored via a questionnaire. Results: The postoperative SE and UDVA did not differ significantly among the three groups (p = 0.100 and 0.204 respectively). The mean UIVAs (logMAR) were 0.61 ± 0.14, 0.3 ± 0.1, and 0.14 ± 0.11 in the Vivinex, Isopure, and Panoptix groups respectively. The Isopure group exhibited a significantly better UIVA than the Vivinex group (p < 0.001) and the Panoptix group exhibited a significantly better UIVA than either the Vivinex or Isopure group (p = 0.002 and < 0.001 respectively). The mean UNVAs (logMAR) were 0.68 ± 0.16, 0.57 ± 0.19, and 0.17 ± 0.12 for the Vivinex, Isopure, and Panoptix groups respectively. There was no significant UNVA difference between the Vivinex and Isopure groups (p = 0.185) but the UNVA of the Panoptix group was significantly better than the UNVAs of the Vivinex and Isopure groups (both p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in photic symptoms between the Vivinex and Isopure groups (p = 0.980); however, the Panoptix group evidenced significantly more severe symptoms than did the other two groups (p = 0.021 and 0.042 respectively). Conclusions Enhanced monofocal Isopure IOL showed superior intermediate vision compared to Vivinex monofocal IOL, and inferior intermediate and near visual acuity compared Panoptix trifocal IOL, but with fewer photic symptoms.