Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Objective:To develop a genotyping method for the Junior blood type and report on a rare blood type with Jr(a-).Methods:Healthy O-type RhD+ volunteer donors of the Shenzhen Blood Center from January to May 2021 ( n=1 568) and a pedigree with difficult cross-matching ( n=3) were selected as the study subjects. Serological methods were used for proband′s blood type identification, unexpected antibody identification, and antibody titer determination. Polymerase chain reaction-sequence specific primer (PCR-SSP) method was used for typing the proband′s RHD gene. ABCG2 gene coding region sequencing and a PCR-SSP genotyping method were established for determining the genotypes of the proband and his family members and screening of Jra antigen-negative rare blood type among the 1 568 blood donors. Results:The proband′s ABO and RhD blood types were respectively determined as B and partial D (RHDDVI.3/RHD01N.01), Junior blood type Jra antigen was negative, and plasma had contained anti-D and anti-Jra. Sequencing of the ABCG2 gene revealed that the proband′s genotype was ABGG201N.01/ABGG201N.01 [homozygous c. 376C>T (p.Gln126X) variants], which is the most common Jr(a-) blood type allele in the Asian population. Screening of the voluntary blood donors has detected no Jr(a-) rare blood type. Statistical analysis of the heterozygotes suggested that the allelic frequency for ABCG2*01N.01 (c.376T) was 0.45%, and the frequency of Jr(a-) rare blood type with this molecular background was about 0.2‰. Conclusion:A very rare case of partial DVI.3 type and Jr(a-) rare blood type has been identified. And a method for identifying the Junior blood type through sequencing the coding regions of the ABCG2 gene and PCR-SSP has been established.

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.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance among Korean endoscopists. Methods: In a web-based survey conducted between September and November 2021, participants were asked about their preferred surveillance intervals and the patient age at which surveillance was discontinued. Adherence to the recent guidelines of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) was also analyzed. Results: In total, 196 endoscopists completed the survey. The most preferred first surveillance intervals were: a 5-year interval after the removal of 1–2 tubular adenomas < 10 mm; a 3-year interval after the removal of 3–10 tubular adenomas < 10 mm, adenomas ≥ 10 mm, tubulovillous or villous adenomas, ≤ 20 hyperplastic polyps < 10 mm, 1–4 sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) < 10 mm, hyperplastic polyps or SSLs ≥ 10 mm, and traditional serrated adenomas; and a 1-year interval after the removal of adenomas with highgrade dysplasia, >10 adenomas, 5–10 SSLs, and SSLs with dysplasia. In piecemeal resections of large polyps ( > 20 mm), surveillance colonoscopy was mostly preferred after 1 year for adenomas and 6 months for SSLs. The mean USMSTF guideline adherence rate was 30.7%. The largest proportion of respondents (40.8%–55.1%) discontinued the surveillance at the patient age of 80–84 years. Conclusions A significant discrepancy was observed between the preferred post-polypectomy surveillance intervals and recent international guidelines. Individualized measures are required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

In children and adolescents, dental age estimation is performed with the development of the teeth. Various statistical analysis methods have been used to determine the relationship between age and dental maturity and develop an accurate method of age calculation. This study attempted to apply a neural network model for the statistical analysis of dental age estimation in children and evaluated its applicability. This study used 1196 panoramic radiographs of patients aged 3–16 years, and 996 and 200 were randomly classified into training and test sets, respectively. The dental maturity of the mandibular left teeth was evaluated using Demirjian's method, the neural network model using the backpropagation algorithm was derived using training sets, and the errors were evaluated using 100 radiographs of each male and female as test sets. In addition, multiple linear regression analysis was conducted on the same training set, and the error was calculated by applying it to the test set and comparing it with the error of the neural network model. In the neural network model, the mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE) were 0.589 and 0.783 in male subjects and 0.529 and 0.760 in female subjects, respectively. In the multiple linear regression model, the MAE and RMSE were 0.600 and 0.748 in male subjects and 0.566 and 0.789 in female subjects, respectively. When applying the neural network model to the statistical analysis of the dental developmental stage, the results were as accurate as those of conventional statistical analysis methods. This study’s approach is expected to be useful for estimating the ages of children.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.

PURPOSE: This prospective clinical study was conducted to evaluate the clinical usefulness of the freely detachable zirconia ball- and spring-retained implant prosthesis (BSRP) through a comparative analysis of screw- and cement-retained implant prosthesis (SCRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-center, randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating the clinical usefulness of the detachable zirconia ball- and spring-retained implant prostheses was conducted. Sixty-four implant prostheses in 64 patients were examined. Periodic observational studies were conducted at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months after delivery of the implant prosthesis. Factors such as implant success rate, marginal bone resorption, periodontal pocket depth, plaque and bleeding index, and prosthetic complications were evaluated, respectively. RESULTS: During the 1-year observation period, all implants survived without functional problems and clinical mobility, showing a 100% implant success rate. Marginal bone resorption was significantly higher in the SCRP group than in the BSRP group only at the time of implant prosthesis delivery (P = .043). In all observation periods, periodontal pocket depth was slightly higher in the BSRP group than in the SCRP group, but there was no significant difference (P > .05). The modified plaque index (mPI) scores of both groups were moderate. Higher ratio of a score 2 in modified sulcus bleeding index (mBI) was observed in the BSRP group in the 6- and 12-months observation. CONCLUSION Within the limitations of this study, the newly developed zirconia ball- and spring-retained implant prosthesis could be considered as an applicable and predictable treatment method along with the existing screw- and cement-retained prosthesis.