Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the differences in biomechanical function and energy absorption of the lower extremity in the sagittal plane when single leg drop landing between groups with flat foot and normal foot. Methods: Twenty-eight healthy men in their 20s were classified into 13 with flat foot and 15 with normal foot through evaluation of navicular drop test. Using a motion analysis system, loading rate (N/sec), peak vertical ground reaction force (N/body weight [BW]), sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle joint range of motion (°), peak moment (Nm/BW), peak joint power (W/BW) and peak joint work (J/BW) were calculated and analyzed during single leg drop landing. Results: During single leg drop landing, the flat foot and normal foot groups showed no significant differences in loading rate, peak vertical ground reaction force, hip and knee joint range of motion, peak knee and ankle joint moment, peak joint power, and peak joint work (p＞ 0.05). However, the flat foot group showed greater ankle range of motion and peak hip joint flexion moment compared to the normal foot group (p=0.040 and p=0.018, respectively). Conclusion The flat foot group shows sagittal plane landing mechanics that are different from the normal foot group during single leg drop landing and appears to try to distribute shock by relying on the distal joint compared to the normal foot group.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the differences in biomechanical function and energy absorption of the lower extremity in the sagittal plane when single leg drop landing between groups with flat foot and normal foot. Methods: Twenty-eight healthy men in their 20s were classified into 13 with flat foot and 15 with normal foot through evaluation of navicular drop test. Using a motion analysis system, loading rate (N/sec), peak vertical ground reaction force (N/body weight [BW]), sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle joint range of motion (°), peak moment (Nm/BW), peak joint power (W/BW) and peak joint work (J/BW) were calculated and analyzed during single leg drop landing. Results: During single leg drop landing, the flat foot and normal foot groups showed no significant differences in loading rate, peak vertical ground reaction force, hip and knee joint range of motion, peak knee and ankle joint moment, peak joint power, and peak joint work (p＞ 0.05). However, the flat foot group showed greater ankle range of motion and peak hip joint flexion moment compared to the normal foot group (p=0.040 and p=0.018, respectively). Conclusion The flat foot group shows sagittal plane landing mechanics that are different from the normal foot group during single leg drop landing and appears to try to distribute shock by relying on the distal joint compared to the normal foot group.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the differences in biomechanical function and energy absorption of the lower extremity in the sagittal plane when single leg drop landing between groups with flat foot and normal foot. Methods: Twenty-eight healthy men in their 20s were classified into 13 with flat foot and 15 with normal foot through evaluation of navicular drop test. Using a motion analysis system, loading rate (N/sec), peak vertical ground reaction force (N/body weight [BW]), sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle joint range of motion (°), peak moment (Nm/BW), peak joint power (W/BW) and peak joint work (J/BW) were calculated and analyzed during single leg drop landing. Results: During single leg drop landing, the flat foot and normal foot groups showed no significant differences in loading rate, peak vertical ground reaction force, hip and knee joint range of motion, peak knee and ankle joint moment, peak joint power, and peak joint work (p＞ 0.05). However, the flat foot group showed greater ankle range of motion and peak hip joint flexion moment compared to the normal foot group (p=0.040 and p=0.018, respectively). Conclusion The flat foot group shows sagittal plane landing mechanics that are different from the normal foot group during single leg drop landing and appears to try to distribute shock by relying on the distal joint compared to the normal foot group.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the differences in biomechanical function and energy absorption of the lower extremity in the sagittal plane when single leg drop landing between groups with flat foot and normal foot. Methods: Twenty-eight healthy men in their 20s were classified into 13 with flat foot and 15 with normal foot through evaluation of navicular drop test. Using a motion analysis system, loading rate (N/sec), peak vertical ground reaction force (N/body weight [BW]), sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle joint range of motion (°), peak moment (Nm/BW), peak joint power (W/BW) and peak joint work (J/BW) were calculated and analyzed during single leg drop landing. Results: During single leg drop landing, the flat foot and normal foot groups showed no significant differences in loading rate, peak vertical ground reaction force, hip and knee joint range of motion, peak knee and ankle joint moment, peak joint power, and peak joint work (p＞ 0.05). However, the flat foot group showed greater ankle range of motion and peak hip joint flexion moment compared to the normal foot group (p=0.040 and p=0.018, respectively). Conclusion The flat foot group shows sagittal plane landing mechanics that are different from the normal foot group during single leg drop landing and appears to try to distribute shock by relying on the distal joint compared to the normal foot group.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the differences in biomechanical function and energy absorption of the lower extremity in the sagittal plane when single leg drop landing between groups with flat foot and normal foot. Methods: Twenty-eight healthy men in their 20s were classified into 13 with flat foot and 15 with normal foot through evaluation of navicular drop test. Using a motion analysis system, loading rate (N/sec), peak vertical ground reaction force (N/body weight [BW]), sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle joint range of motion (°), peak moment (Nm/BW), peak joint power (W/BW) and peak joint work (J/BW) were calculated and analyzed during single leg drop landing. Results: During single leg drop landing, the flat foot and normal foot groups showed no significant differences in loading rate, peak vertical ground reaction force, hip and knee joint range of motion, peak knee and ankle joint moment, peak joint power, and peak joint work (p＞ 0.05). However, the flat foot group showed greater ankle range of motion and peak hip joint flexion moment compared to the normal foot group (p=0.040 and p=0.018, respectively). Conclusion The flat foot group shows sagittal plane landing mechanics that are different from the normal foot group during single leg drop landing and appears to try to distribute shock by relying on the distal joint compared to the normal foot group.

Purpose: This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.