Purpose: To report five cases of macular hole (MH) coexisting with uveal melanoma (UM) and review the literature. Methods: Seventeen patients (5 new and 12 from previous reports) with coexisting MH and UM were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether the MH was diagnosed before or after tumor treatment. The clinical features, pathogenesis, management options, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Results: Of 505 patients with UM in our institution, 5 (1.0%) had a concurrent MH in the ipsilateral eye. The 17 patients reviewed had a mean age of 63.9 years at the time of MH diagnosis. Of 16 patients with available data on sex, 11 (64.7%) were female. There were no major differences in the demographic or clinical data of the groups. Of the 15 known tumor locations, 6 (35.3%) were juxtapapillary or macular. In patients who developed MH after UM treatment, the durations from tumor treatment (radiotherapy or transpupillary thermotherapy) to MH diagnosis were 3 to 56 months (median, 8.5 months). MH surgery was performed in nine eyes, and hole closure was achieved in seven eyes with postoperative data. The mean visual acuity showed a tendency of improvement after surgery. No intraocular or extraocular tumor dissemination associated with surgery was observed. Conclusions MH is observed in approximately 1% of patients with UM, either before or after tumor treatment. Of patients with coexisting MH and UM, MH surgery appears to be safe and effective in those with stable tumors and visual potential.

Purpose: To report five cases of macular hole (MH) coexisting with uveal melanoma (UM) and review the literature. Methods: Seventeen patients (5 new and 12 from previous reports) with coexisting MH and UM were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether the MH was diagnosed before or after tumor treatment. The clinical features, pathogenesis, management options, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Results: Of 505 patients with UM in our institution, 5 (1.0%) had a concurrent MH in the ipsilateral eye. The 17 patients reviewed had a mean age of 63.9 years at the time of MH diagnosis. Of 16 patients with available data on sex, 11 (64.7%) were female. There were no major differences in the demographic or clinical data of the groups. Of the 15 known tumor locations, 6 (35.3%) were juxtapapillary or macular. In patients who developed MH after UM treatment, the durations from tumor treatment (radiotherapy or transpupillary thermotherapy) to MH diagnosis were 3 to 56 months (median, 8.5 months). MH surgery was performed in nine eyes, and hole closure was achieved in seven eyes with postoperative data. The mean visual acuity showed a tendency of improvement after surgery. No intraocular or extraocular tumor dissemination associated with surgery was observed. Conclusions MH is observed in approximately 1% of patients with UM, either before or after tumor treatment. Of patients with coexisting MH and UM, MH surgery appears to be safe and effective in those with stable tumors and visual potential.

Purpose: To report five cases of macular hole (MH) coexisting with uveal melanoma (UM) and review the literature. Methods: Seventeen patients (5 new and 12 from previous reports) with coexisting MH and UM were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether the MH was diagnosed before or after tumor treatment. The clinical features, pathogenesis, management options, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Results: Of 505 patients with UM in our institution, 5 (1.0%) had a concurrent MH in the ipsilateral eye. The 17 patients reviewed had a mean age of 63.9 years at the time of MH diagnosis. Of 16 patients with available data on sex, 11 (64.7%) were female. There were no major differences in the demographic or clinical data of the groups. Of the 15 known tumor locations, 6 (35.3%) were juxtapapillary or macular. In patients who developed MH after UM treatment, the durations from tumor treatment (radiotherapy or transpupillary thermotherapy) to MH diagnosis were 3 to 56 months (median, 8.5 months). MH surgery was performed in nine eyes, and hole closure was achieved in seven eyes with postoperative data. The mean visual acuity showed a tendency of improvement after surgery. No intraocular or extraocular tumor dissemination associated with surgery was observed. Conclusions MH is observed in approximately 1% of patients with UM, either before or after tumor treatment. Of patients with coexisting MH and UM, MH surgery appears to be safe and effective in those with stable tumors and visual potential.

Purpose: To report five cases of macular hole (MH) coexisting with uveal melanoma (UM) and review the literature. Methods: Seventeen patients (5 new and 12 from previous reports) with coexisting MH and UM were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether the MH was diagnosed before or after tumor treatment. The clinical features, pathogenesis, management options, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Results: Of 505 patients with UM in our institution, 5 (1.0%) had a concurrent MH in the ipsilateral eye. The 17 patients reviewed had a mean age of 63.9 years at the time of MH diagnosis. Of 16 patients with available data on sex, 11 (64.7%) were female. There were no major differences in the demographic or clinical data of the groups. Of the 15 known tumor locations, 6 (35.3%) were juxtapapillary or macular. In patients who developed MH after UM treatment, the durations from tumor treatment (radiotherapy or transpupillary thermotherapy) to MH diagnosis were 3 to 56 months (median, 8.5 months). MH surgery was performed in nine eyes, and hole closure was achieved in seven eyes with postoperative data. The mean visual acuity showed a tendency of improvement after surgery. No intraocular or extraocular tumor dissemination associated with surgery was observed. Conclusions MH is observed in approximately 1% of patients with UM, either before or after tumor treatment. Of patients with coexisting MH and UM, MH surgery appears to be safe and effective in those with stable tumors and visual potential.

Purpose: To report five cases of macular hole (MH) coexisting with uveal melanoma (UM) and review the literature. Methods: Seventeen patients (5 new and 12 from previous reports) with coexisting MH and UM were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether the MH was diagnosed before or after tumor treatment. The clinical features, pathogenesis, management options, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Results: Of 505 patients with UM in our institution, 5 (1.0%) had a concurrent MH in the ipsilateral eye. The 17 patients reviewed had a mean age of 63.9 years at the time of MH diagnosis. Of 16 patients with available data on sex, 11 (64.7%) were female. There were no major differences in the demographic or clinical data of the groups. Of the 15 known tumor locations, 6 (35.3%) were juxtapapillary or macular. In patients who developed MH after UM treatment, the durations from tumor treatment (radiotherapy or transpupillary thermotherapy) to MH diagnosis were 3 to 56 months (median, 8.5 months). MH surgery was performed in nine eyes, and hole closure was achieved in seven eyes with postoperative data. The mean visual acuity showed a tendency of improvement after surgery. No intraocular or extraocular tumor dissemination associated with surgery was observed. Conclusions MH is observed in approximately 1% of patients with UM, either before or after tumor treatment. Of patients with coexisting MH and UM, MH surgery appears to be safe and effective in those with stable tumors and visual potential.

Objective: Understanding the specific fears associated with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), particularly within different cultural contexts, is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions. This study aims to develop and validate the COVID-19 Infection Fear Scale (CIFS) in a collectivist cultural context such as Korea. Methods: A total of 1,002 adults aged 19 to 70 participated in an online survey in May 2020. The CIFS was developed through a multidisciplinary approach, categorizing public fears into two domains: fear of infection and fear of negative outcomes post-infection. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to validate the factor structure. Reliability and construct validity were assessed through correlations with anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Results: The CIFS demonstrated high internal consistency. EFA and CFA supported a two-factor model. The Rasch analysis confirmed good item fit, with infit and outfit indices within the acceptable range. Differential item functioning analysis indicated minor sex and age biases, addressed without removing items. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Fear of negative consequences post-infection showed a stronger correlation with psychological distress than fear of infection. Conclusion The CIFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fear related to COVID-19 infection and its consequences, particularly within a collectivist cultural context. This scale can aid in identifying individuals at higher risk of psychological distress and inform targeted interventions.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.