Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Controversies exist regarding the need for prophylactic extraction of mandibular third molars in patients who plan to undergo orthognathic surgery.An 18-year-old male patient was diagnosed with mandibular prognathism and maxillary retrognathism with mild facial asymmetry. He had a severely damaged mandibular first molar and a horizontally impacted third molar. After extraction of the first molar, the second molar was protracted into the first molar space, and the third molar erupted into the posterior line of occlusion. The orthognathic surgery involved clockwise rotation of the maxillomandibular complex as well as angle shaving and chin border trimming. Patients who are missing or have damaged mandibular molars should be monitored for eruption of third molars to replace the missing posterior tooth regardless of the timing of orthognathic surgery.

Objective: Comprehensive understanding of polyenvironmental risk factors for the development of psychosis is important. Based on a review of related evidence, we developed the Korea Polyenvironmental Risk Score (K-PERS) for psychosis. We investigated whether the K-PERS can differentiate patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) from healthy controls (HCs). Methods: We reviewed existing tools for measuring polyenvironmental risk factors for psychosis, including the Maudsley Environmental Risk Score (ERS), polyenviromic risk score (PERS), and Psychosis Polyrisk Score (PPS). Using odds ratios and relative risks for Western studies and the “population proportion” (PP) of risk factors for Korean data, we developed the K-PERS, and compared the scores thereon between patients with SSDs and HCs. In addition, correlation was performed between the K-PERS and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Results: We first constructed the “K-PERS-I,” comprising five factors based on the PPS, and then the “K-PERS-II” comprising six factors based on the ERS. The instruments accurately predicted participants’ status (case vs. control). In addition, the K-PERS-I and -II scores exhibited significant negative correlations with the negative symptom factor score of the PANSS. Conclusion The K-PERS is the first comprehensive tool developed based on PP data obtained from Korean studies that measures polyenvironmental risk factors for psychosis. Using pilot data, the K-PERS predicted patient status (SSD vs. HC). Further research is warranted to examine the relationship of K-PERS scores with clinical outcomes of psychosis and schizophrenia.

Regdanvimab is the only monoclonal antibody available in Korea that targets severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical characteristics of 374 adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who were treated with regdanvimab from September through December 2021. In total, 322 (86.1%) patients exhibited risk factors for disease progression. Most patients (91.4%) improved without additional treatment. No patient died or was transferred to intensive care. This study shows that regdanvimab prevented disease progression in high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infections during Delta variant predominance.

Background/Aims: To analyze the incidence and risk factors of outcomes after liver transplantation (LT) in the Korean population. Methods: This study analyzed data from the liver cohort of Korean Organ Transplantation Registry (KOTRY) who had LT between May 2014 and December 2017. Study measures included the incidence of post-LT outcomes in recipients of living donor LT (LDLT) and deceased donor LT (DDLT). Cox multivariate proportional hazards model was used to determine the potential risk factors predicting the outcomes. Results: A total of 2,563 adult recipients with LT (LDLT, n=1,956; DDLT, n=607) were included, with mean±standard deviation age of 53.9±8.9 years, and 72.2% were male. The post-LT outcomes observed in each LDLT and DDLT recipients were death (4.0% and 14.7%), graft loss (5.0% and 16.1%), rejection (7.0% and 12.0%), renal failure (2.7% and 13.8%), new onset of diabetes (12.5% and 15.4%), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence (both 6.7%). In both LDLT and DDLT recipients, the most common post-LT complications were renal dysfunction (33.6% and 51.4%), infection (26.7% and 48.4%), and surgical complication (22.5% and 23.9%). Incidence of these outcomes were generally higher among recipients of DDLT than LDLT. Multivariate analysis indicated recipient age and DDLT as significant risk factors associated with death and graft loss. DDLT and ABO incompatible transplant were prognostic factors for rejection, and HCC beyond Milan criteria at pre-transplant was a strong predictor of HCC recurrence. Conclusions This study is a good indicator of the post-LT prognosis in the Korean population and suggests a significant burden of post-LT complications.

Colon cancer treatment is on the way to evolution over several decades. The minimally invasive surgery has improved postoperative short-term outcomes. Adjuvant chemotherapy has prolonged the survival of advanced colon cancer patients. Hohenberger proposed the noble concept of complete mesocolic excision (CME) which consists of 3 components: plane surgery, sufficient longitudinal bowel resection, and central vascular ligation (CVL). Mesocolic plane surgery shares the same surgical principle of total mesorectal excision, which is maintaining the intact mesothelial envelope. However, there remain debates about the extent of bowel resection and the level of CVL for maximizing lymph node dissection. There is no solid clinical evidence for the oncological necessity and benefit of extended radical dissection in right hemicolectomy. CME with CVL based on open surgery has been adopted in laparoscopic surgery. So, it is also necessary to look at how the CME could be transformed and successfully implanted in the laparoscopic era. Recent rapid advances in surgical technology and cancer biology are preparing for fundamental changes in cancer surgery. In this study, we reviewed the history, oncological necessity, and compatibility of CME for the right hemicolectomy in the laparoscopic era and outline the new perspectives on the evolution of cancer surgery.

Background/Aims: To analyze the incidence and risk factors of outcomes after liver transplantation (LT) in the Korean population. Methods: This study analyzed data from the liver cohort of Korean Organ Transplantation Registry (KOTRY) who had LT between May 2014 and December 2017. Study measures included the incidence of post-LT outcomes in recipients of living donor LT (LDLT) and deceased donor LT (DDLT). Cox multivariate proportional hazards model was used to determine the potential risk factors predicting the outcomes. Results: A total of 2,563 adult recipients with LT (LDLT, n=1,956; DDLT, n=607) were included, with mean±standard deviation age of 53.9±8.9 years, and 72.2% were male. The post-LT outcomes observed in each LDLT and DDLT recipients were death (4.0% and 14.7%), graft loss (5.0% and 16.1%), rejection (7.0% and 12.0%), renal failure (2.7% and 13.8%), new onset of diabetes (12.5% and 15.4%), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence (both 6.7%). In both LDLT and DDLT recipients, the most common post-LT complications were renal dysfunction (33.6% and 51.4%), infection (26.7% and 48.4%), and surgical complication (22.5% and 23.9%). Incidence of these outcomes were generally higher among recipients of DDLT than LDLT. Multivariate analysis indicated recipient age and DDLT as significant risk factors associated with death and graft loss. DDLT and ABO incompatible transplant were prognostic factors for rejection, and HCC beyond Milan criteria at pre-transplant was a strong predictor of HCC recurrence. Conclusions This study is a good indicator of the post-LT prognosis in the Korean population and suggests a significant burden of post-LT complications.