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.

Congenital isolated hydronephrosis encompasses a spectrum of physiologic states that spontaneously resolve and pathologic obstruction that necessitates surgical intervention. Distinguishing patients whose condition will resolve, those who will require stringent follow-up, and those who will eventually need surgical intervention present a challenge to clinicians, particularly because no unified guidelines for assessment and follow-up have been established. The recognition of the natural course and prognosis of hydronephrosis and a comprehensive understanding of the currently proposed consensus guidelines may aid in multidisciplinary treatment and in providing proper counseling to caregivers. In this review, we aimed to summarize the literature on the grading systems and management strategies for congenital isolated hydronephrosis.

Purpose: To report a case of transient cortical blindness following cervical transforaminal epidural injection.Case summary: A 58-year-old diabetic and hypertensive male was referred to the ophthalmology department with sudden-onset bilateral visual disturbances after cervical transforaminal epidural injection for neck pain. During the procedure, an intravascular contrast medium was injected into the left vertebral artery. Immediately after the injection, the patient complained of bilateral visual disturbances, mild headache, and dizziness. Twelve hours after the procedure, his visual acuity was reduced to hand motion perception in both eyes. Anterior segment and fundus examinations were unremarkable. Pupillary light reflexes and extraocular muscle movements were normal. Brain magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance angiography, and fluorescein angiography showed no significant findings. There were no other neurological abnormalities. The patient was treated conservatively with intravenous dexamethasone and nimodipine based on a provisional diagnosis of transient cortical blindness. The symptoms gradually improved 2 days after the procedure; visual acuity recovered to 20/20 by the third day. Conclusions Although contrast-induced transient cortical blindness is rare, it should be considered in patients with bilateral visual loss after transforaminal epidural injection. It is a benign and reversible condition but requires a prompt diagnosis.

Objective: Early defibrillation is crucial for the survival of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This study aimed to examine the trends and associated factors regarding public awareness and willingness to use automated external defibrillators (AEDs) through citywide surveys. Methods: Three-round surveys were conducted in February 2012 (n=1,000), December 2016 (n=1,141), and December 2018 (n=1,001) among citizens in Daegu, South Korea, who were aged ≥19 years. The subjects were selected through a three-stage quota sampling. Awareness and willingness to use an AED were assessed in the three groups. The primary outcome was willingness to use AEDs. Results: Of 3,142 respondents, 3,069 were eligible for analysis. The proportion of respondents who knew how to use AEDs increased from 4.7% in 2012 to 20.8% in 2018. Of the respondents in 2012, 2016, and 2018, 39.7%, 50.0%, and 43.2%, respectively, were willing to use an AED. Factors associated with willingness to use AEDs were male sex (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10–1.75), cardiopulmonary resuscitation training experience in the previous 2 years (AOR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.43–2.28), recognition of the Good Samaritan law (AOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13–1.86), and awareness of how to use an AED (AOR, 4.40; 95% CI, 3.26–5.93). Conclusion To increase willingness to use AEDs, education in AED use and the Good Samaritan law, along with re-education to maintain knowledge of AED use, should be considered.

Background: The spore-forming bacterium Bacillus anthracis causes anthrax, an often-fatal infection in animals. Therefore, a rapid and reliable strategy to decontaminate areas, humans, and livestock from B. anthracis is very critical. Objectives: The aim of this study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of sodium hypochlorite, calcium hypochlorite, and quaternary ammonium compound (QAC) sanitizers, which are commonly used in the food industry, to inhibit spores and vegetative cells of B.anthracis surrogate. Methods: We evaluated the efficacy of sodium hypochlorite, calcium hypochlorite, and a QAC in inhibiting vegetative cells and spores of a B. anthracis surrogate. We treated a 0.1-mL vegetative cell culture or spore solution with 10 mL sanitizer. The samples were serially diluted and cultured. Results: We found that 50 ppm sodium hypochlorite (pH 7), 1 ppm calcium hypochlorite, and 1 ppm QAC completely eliminated the cells in vegetative state. Exposure to 3,000 ppm sodium hypochlorite (pH 7) and 300 ppm calcium hypochlorite significantly eliminated the bacterial spores; however, 50,000 ppm QAC could not eliminate all spores. Conclusions Calcium hypochlorite and QAC showed better performance than sodium hypochlorite in completely eliminating vegetative cells of B. anthracis surrogate. QAC was ineffective against spores of the B. anthracis surrogate. Among the three commercial disinfectants tested, calcium hypochlorite most effectively eliminated both B. anthracis vegetative cells and spores.

Objective: Early defibrillation is crucial for the survival of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This study aimed to examine the trends and associated factors regarding public awareness and willingness to use automated external defibrillators (AEDs) through citywide surveys. Methods: Three-round surveys were conducted in February 2012 (n=1,000), December 2016 (n=1,141), and December 2018 (n=1,001) among citizens in Daegu, South Korea, who were aged ≥19 years. The subjects were selected through a three-stage quota sampling. Awareness and willingness to use an AED were assessed in the three groups. The primary outcome was willingness to use AEDs. Results: Of 3,142 respondents, 3,069 were eligible for analysis. The proportion of respondents who knew how to use AEDs increased from 4.7% in 2012 to 20.8% in 2018. Of the respondents in 2012, 2016, and 2018, 39.7%, 50.0%, and 43.2%, respectively, were willing to use an AED. Factors associated with willingness to use AEDs were male sex (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10–1.75), cardiopulmonary resuscitation training experience in the previous 2 years (AOR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.43–2.28), recognition of the Good Samaritan law (AOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13–1.86), and awareness of how to use an AED (AOR, 4.40; 95% CI, 3.26–5.93). Conclusion To increase willingness to use AEDs, education in AED use and the Good Samaritan law, along with re-education to maintain knowledge of AED use, should be considered.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the recent prevalence, management, and comorbidities of diabetes among Korean adults aged ≥30 years by analyzing nationally representative data. Methods: This study used data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2016 to 2018, and the percentage and total number of people ≥30 years of age with diabetes and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) were estimated. Results: In 2018, 13.8% of Korean adults aged ≥30 years had diabetes, and adults aged ≥65 years showed a prevalence rate of 28%. The prevalence of IFG was 26.9% in adults aged ≥30 years. From 2016 to 2018, 35% of the subjects with diabetes were not aware of their condition. Regarding comorbidities, 53.2% and 61.3% were obese and hypertensive, respectively, and 72% had hypercholesterolemia as defined by low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥100 mg/dL in people with diabetes. Of the subjects with diabetes, 43.7% had both hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. With regard to glycemic control, only 28.3% reached the target level of <6.5%. Moreover, only 11.5% of subjects with diabetes met all three targets of glycosylated hemoglobin, blood pressure, and LDL-C. The percentage of energy intake from carbohydrates was higher in diabetes patients than in those without diabetes, while that from protein and fat was lower in subjects with diabetes. Conclusion The high prevalence and low control rate of diabetes and its comorbidities in Korean adults were confirmed. More stringent efforts are needed to improve the comprehensive management of diabetes to reduce diabetes-related morbidity and mortality.

Objective: This study compared the prognostic performance of the following five injury severity scores: the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS), the Injury Severity Score (ISS), the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) for in-hospital mortality in severe geriatric trauma patients. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional, observational study was conducted using a database of severe geriatric trauma patients (age ≥65 years and ISS ≥16) who presented to a single regional trauma center between November 2016 and October 2018. We compared the baseline characteristics between the survivor and mortality groups and the predictive ability of the five scoring systems. Results: A total of 402 patients were included in the analysis; the in-hospital mortality rate was 25.6% (n=103). The TRISS had the highest area under the curve of 0.953 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.927-0.971); followed by RTS, 0.777 (95% CI, 0.733-0.817); NISS, 0.733 (95% CI, 0.687-0.776); ISS, 0.660 (95% CI, 0.612-0.707); and GTOS, 0.660 (95% CI, 0.611-0.706) in severe geriatric trauma. The TRISS also had the highest area under the curve of 0.961 (0.919-0.985) among the injury severity scoring systems in polytrauma. The predictive ability of TRISS was significantly higher than the other four scores with respect to overall trauma and polytrauma (P<0.001). Conclusion The TRISS showed the highest prognostic performance for predicting in-hospital mortality among all the injury severity scoring systems in severe geriatric trauma.