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.

Background: Keloid treatment is challenging because of the high likelihood of recurrence and a lack of definitive treatment combinations. The treatment of bulky and recurrent keloids is particularly difficult. We investigated the administration of extralesional cryotherapy (EL) in conjunction with intralesional (IL) triamcinolone (TA) injections as adjuvant therapy after surgical excision for the management of keloids. Methods: Among all patients who visited our scar laser center between January 2016 and August 2017, 54 patients who underwent IL keloid excision with EL cryotherapy and IL TA injection as adjuvant therapy were included in this retrospective study. We examined sex, site, the number of cryotherapy sessions and TA injections, symptoms after surgery, and recurrence. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was used as to quantify treatment outcomes. Results: Among 54 cases of IL keloid excision, after an average of 6.26 cryotherapy sessions and IL TA injections as combined adjuvant treatment, the lesion was controlled without recurrence in 49 cases. Relapse occurred in five patients, requiring additional treatment and reoperation. For 49 patients with photographic data, the average VSS score before and after treatment improved from 10.1 to 5.0. In 17 patients in whom symptoms recurred after surgery, all symptoms were controlled and maintained with adjuvant therapy. Conclusions Initial direct surgical excision, followed by a combination of EL cryotherapy and IL TA injections, was shown to be effective in challenging cases of large and recurring keloids.

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.

BACKGROUND: It can be difficult to select an appropriate flap for various defects on the hand. Although defects of the hand usually must be covered with a skin flap, some defects require a flap with rich blood supply and adequate additive soft tissue volume. The authors present their experience with the anconeus muscle free flap in the reconstruction of various defects and the release of scar contractures of the hand. METHODS: Ten patients underwent reconstruction of the finger or release of the first web space using the anconeus muscle free flap from May 1998 to October 2013. Adequate bed preparations with thorough debridement or contracture release were performed. The entire anconeus muscle, located at the elbow superficially, was harvested, with the posterior recurrent interosseous artery as a pedicle. The defects were covered with a uniformly trimmed anconeus muscle free flap. Additional debulking of the flap and skin coverage using a split-thickness skin graft were performed 3 weeks after the first operation. RESULTS: The average flap size was 18.7 cm² (range, 13.5–30 cm²). All flaps survived without significant complications. Vein grafts for overcoming a short pedicle were necessary in 4 cases. CONCLUSIONS: The anconeus muscle free flap can be considered a reliable reconstructive option for small defects on the hand or contracture release of the web space, because it has relatively consistent anatomy, provides robust blood supply within the same operative field, and leads to no functional loss at the donor site.
Arteries ; Cicatrix ; Contracture ; Debridement ; Elbow ; Fingers ; Free Tissue Flaps* ; Hand* ; Humans ; Muscle, Skeletal ; Osteomyelitis ; Skin ; Tissue Donors ; Transplants ; Veins

BACKGROUND: It can be difficult to select an appropriate flap for various defects on the hand. Although defects of the hand usually must be covered with a skin flap, some defects require a flap with rich blood supply and adequate additive soft tissue volume. The authors present their experience with the anconeus muscle free flap in the reconstruction of various defects and the release of scar contractures of the hand. METHODS: Ten patients underwent reconstruction of the finger or release of the first web space using the anconeus muscle free flap from May 1998 to October 2013. Adequate bed preparations with thorough debridement or contracture release were performed. The entire anconeus muscle, located at the elbow superficially, was harvested, with the posterior recurrent interosseous artery as a pedicle. The defects were covered with a uniformly trimmed anconeus muscle free flap. Additional debulking of the flap and skin coverage using a split-thickness skin graft were performed 3 weeks after the first operation. RESULTS: The average flap size was 18.7 cm² (range, 13.5–30 cm²). All flaps survived without significant complications. Vein grafts for overcoming a short pedicle were necessary in 4 cases. CONCLUSIONS: The anconeus muscle free flap can be considered a reliable reconstructive option for small defects on the hand or contracture release of the web space, because it has relatively consistent anatomy, provides robust blood supply within the same operative field, and leads to no functional loss at the donor site.
Arteries ; Cicatrix ; Contracture ; Debridement ; Elbow ; Fingers ; Free Tissue Flaps* ; Hand* ; Humans ; Muscle, Skeletal ; Osteomyelitis ; Skin ; Tissue Donors ; Transplants ; Veins

No abstract available.
Myelitis* ; Polyneuropathies*

BACKGROUND: Conventional nerve conduction studies (NCS) are used in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The median terminal latency index (TLI) and median residual latency (RL) are parameters calculated to identify abnormalities in distal segments of the median motor nerve. The objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of TLI and RL together with NCS in the diagnosis of CTS. METHODS: This prospective study involved 83 hands of 47 patients with suspected CTS. Conventional NCS were performed using Oh's method. Control data were obtained from the 68 hands of 40 healthy volunteers. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of TLI and RL were calculated and compared with those of conventional NCS. We divided the CTS patients into four groups based on their electrophysiological severity, and compared the TLI and RL values between these groups. RESULTS: TLI and RL were 0.20+/-0.03 (mean+/-SD) and 3.62+/-0.90, respectively, in the patients, while the corresponding values, in the healthy control, were 0.29+/-0.03 and 2.08+/-0.30. The sensitivities of TLI and RL in diagnosing CTS were 75.9% and 86.3%, respectively. Compared with median motor terminal latency, the sensitivities of TLI and RL in diagnosing CTS was found to be higher. Moreover, the diagnostic sensitivities of TLI and RL were significant better for the severe group than for the mild and moderate severity group. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that measuring TLI and RL of the median nerve may increase the sensitivity in diagnosing CTS and also provide information about its electrophysiological severity.
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome* ; Diagnosis* ; Hand ; Healthy Volunteers ; Humans ; Median Nerve ; Neural Conduction ; Prospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity*