Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Objectives: . This study was conducted to evaluate the user satisfaction, efficacy, and safety of round window (RW) vibroplasty using the Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) in patients with persistent mixed hearing loss after mastoidectomy. Methods: . The study included 27 patients (mean age, 58.7 years; age range, 28–76 years; 11 men and 16 women) with mixed hearing loss after mastoidectomy from 15 tertiary referral centers in Korea. The VSB was implanted at the RW. The Korean translation of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire and the Korean version of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (K-IOI-HA) questionnaire were used to evaluate user satisfaction as the primary outcome. The secondary outcome measures were audiological test results and complication rates. Results: . The mean scores for ease of communication (61.3% to 29.7% to 30.2%), reverberation (62.1% to 43.1% to 37.4%), and background noise (63.3% to 37.7% to 34.3%) subscales of the APHAB questionnaire significantly decreased after VSB surgery. The mean K-IOI-HA scores at 3 and 6 months after surgery were significantly higher than the mean preoperative score (18.6 to 27.2 to 28.1). The postoperative VSB-aided thresholds were significantly lower than the preoperative unaided and hearing aid (HA)-aided thresholds. There was no significant difference between preoperative unaided, preoperative HA-aided, and postoperative VSB-aided maximum phonetically balanced word-recognition scores. None of the 27 patients experienced a change in postoperative bone conduction pure tone average. One patient developed temporary facial palsy and two developed surgical wound infections. Conclusion . RW vibroplasty resulted in improved satisfaction and audiological test results in patients with mixed hearing loss after mastoidectomy, and the complication rate was tolerable.

Concerns about the effectiveness of current vaccines against the rapidly spreading severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant are increasing. This study aimed to assess neutralizing antibody activity against the wild-type (BetaCoV/Korea/ KCDC03/2020), delta, and omicron variants after full primary and booster vaccinations with BNT162b2. A plaque reduction neutralization test was employed to determine 50% neutralizing dilution (ND 50 ) titers in serum samples. ND 50 titers against the omicron variant (median [interquartile range], 5.3 [< 5.0–12.7]) after full primary vaccination were lower than those against the wild-type (144.8 [44.7–294.0]) and delta (24.3 [14.3–81.1]) variants.Furthermore, 19/30 participants (63.3%) displayed lower ND 50 titers than the detection threshold (< 10.0) against omicron after full primary vaccination. However, the booster vaccine significantly increased ND 50 titers against BetaCoV/Korea/KCDC03/2020, delta, and omicron, although titers against omicron remained lower than those against the other variants (P < 0.001). Our study suggests that booster vaccination with BNT162b2 significantly increases humoral immunity against the omicron variant.

The area of endoscopic application has been continuously expanded since its introduction in the last century and the frequency of its use also increased stiffly in the last decades. Because gastrointestinal endoscopy is naturally exposed to diseased internal organs and contact with pathogenic materials, endoscopy mediated infection or disease transmission becomes a major concern in this field. Gastrointestinal endoscopy is not for single use and the proper reprocessing process is a critical factor for safe and reliable endoscopy procedures. What needed in these circumstances is a practical guideline for reprocessing the endoscope and its accessories which is feasible in the real clinical field to guarantee acceptable prevention of pathogen transmission. This guideline contains principles and instructions of the reprocessing procedure according to the step by step. And it newly includes general information and updated knowledge about endoscopy-mediated infection and disinfection. Multiple societies and working groups participated to revise; Korean Association for the Study of the Liver, the Korean Society of Infectious Diseases, Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research, the Korean Society of Gastroenterology, Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases, Korean Pancreatobiliary Association, the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Nurses and Associates and Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Through this cooperation, we enhanced communication and established a better concordance. We still need more researches in this field and fill up the unproven area. And our guidelines will be renewed accordingly.

Though clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are an effective and widely used treatment method worldwide, they are as yet not widely accepted in Korea. Given that cardiovascular (CV) disease is the second leading cause of death in Korea, it is urgent that CR programs be developed. In 2008, the Government of Korea implemented CR programs at 11 university hospitals as part of its Regional Cardio-Cerebrovascular Center Project, and 3 additional medical facilities will be added in 2019. In addition, owing to the promotion of CR nationwide and the introduction of CR insurance benefits, 40 medical institutions nationwide have begun CR programs even as a growing number of medical institutions are preparing to offer CR. The purpose of this research was to develop evidence-based CPGs to support CR implementation in Korea. This study is based on an analysis of CPGs elsewhere in the world, an extensive literature search, a systematic analysis of multiple randomized control trials, and a CPG management, development, and assessment committee comprised of thirty-three authors—primarily rehabilitation specialists, cardiologists, and thoracic surgeons in 21 university hospitals and 2 general hospitals. Twelve consultants, primarily rehabilitation, sports medicine, and preventive medicine specialists, CPG experts, nurses, physical therapists, clinical nutritionists, and library and information experts participated in the research and development of these CPGs. After the draft guidelines were developed, 3 rounds of public hearings were held with staff members from relevant academic societies and stakeholders, after which the guidelines were further reviewed and modified. CR involves a more cost-effective use of healthcare resources relative to that of general treatments, and the exercise component of CR lowers CV mortality and readmission rates, regardless of the type of coronary heart disease and type and setting of CR. Individualized CR programs should be considered together with various factors, including differences in heart function and lifestyle, and doing so will boost participation and adherence with the CR program, ultimately meeting the final goals of the program, namely reducing the recurrence of myocardial infarction and mortality rates.
Acute Coronary Syndrome ; Cause of Death ; Consultants ; Coronary Disease ; Delivery of Health Care ; Heart ; Hospitals, General ; Hospitals, University ; Humans ; Insurance Benefits ; Korea ; Life Style ; Methods ; Mortality ; Myocardial Infarction ; Nutritionists ; Physical Therapists ; Preventive Medicine ; Recurrence ; Rehabilitation ; Secondary Prevention ; Specialization ; Sports Medicine ; Surgeons

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate that usefulness of the endoscopic ear surgery (EES) through the systematic review. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: We searched literatures in literature databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, etc.). Inclusion criteria is 1) studies of patients with chronic otitis media, otitis media with effusion, cholesteatoma, conductive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss etc. 2) studies in which a transcanal endoscopic surgery was performed; and 3) studies in which one or more of the appropriate medical outcomes have been reported. We excluded that 1) non-human studies and pre-clinical studies; 2) non-original articles, for example, non-systematic reviews; editorial, letter and opinion pieces; 3) research not published in Korean and English; and 4) grey literature. Finally, 65 articles were selected and those results were analyzed. RESULTS: The safety of the EES was reported in 61 articles. Some studies reported damaged facial nerve or perilymph gusher but these are the complications that can arise due to the characteristics of the disease and not due to the EES and other reported complications were of similar or lower level in the intervention group rather than the microscopy group. The effectiveness of the EES was reported in 23 articles. The EES tended to show improved effects in terms of graft uptake status, cholesteatoma removal, and hearing improvement although effective outcomes of most studies reported no significant difference between EES and microscopic ear surgery. CONCLUSION: EES is a safe and effective technique and as it is less invasive than the microscopic ear surgery.
Cholesteatoma ; Ear ; Endoscopes ; Facial Nerve ; Hearing ; Hearing Loss, Conductive ; Hearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-Sensorineural ; Humans ; Methods ; Microscopy ; Otitis Media ; Otitis Media with Effusion ; Otologic Surgical Procedures ; Perilymph ; Transplants