Objective: Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) are effective in treating gaming disorder (GD). However, studies have not comprehensively evaluated the most effective NPIs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of NPIs on the prevention and reduction of GD in the general population with GD. Methods: We searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) for English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published till May 12, 2024, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB2). Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model, with effect sizes calculated using Hedges’s g and heterogeneity assessed using I2 statistics. Results: A total of 18 RCTs involving 1,950 participants were included. The NPIs included psychotherapy, behavioral interventions, and other strategies. The pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in GD severity (Hedges’s g=-0.82; 95% confidence interval, -1.23 to -0.52; I2=90.36%). Psychotherapy, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy, showed the most substantial effect (10 studies, 1,036 participants; Hedges’s g=-1.34). Behavioral interventions (4 studies, 456 participants) and prevention-focused interventions (6 studies, 1,164 participants) had smaller but positive effects. Subgroup analyses revealed greater effectiveness of treatment interventions in adults than in adolescents. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results despite high heterogeneity (I2=90.36%). Conclusion NPIs, particularly psychotherapy, are effective in reducing GD severity. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed robust, evidence-based treatment guidelines.

Background: Decreased acetabular version and posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head have been regarded as the leading causes of sport-related posterior hip dislocation or subluxation. This study aimed to examine the posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head in 21 patients who sustained posterior hip dislocation or subluxation during sport activities. Methods: The anterior and posterior acetabular rims on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images were delineated on the normal side in these patients. Radiologic signs, including crossover and posterior wall signs, were examined. The fracture center level (FCL) of the posterior acetabular wall was identified on axial CT images of the injured hip and the level was marked on the normal side. The difference in the femoral head coverage by posterior and anterior acetabular rims was measured by measuring the horizontal distance between anterior and posterior acetabular rims at the FCL (posterior-anterior [P-A] index). The acetabular version was measured at the femoral head and FCL using axial CT images of the normal side. Femoral head coverage by the posterior acetabular wall on the normal side was measured using 3D-CT (areal coverage). Results: The crossover and posterior wall signs were positive in 14 and 10 patients, respectively, in 3D-CT images. The FCL was evenly distributed in the proximal half of the posterior acetabular wall. Seven patients had a P-A index of ≤ 0, and all were positive for the crossover sign. The anterior acetabular rim was relatively prominent in these patients. The acetabular version was lower at the FCL than at the femoral head center (p < 0.001). The proximal half areal coverage of the posterior acetabular wall was significantly smaller than the whole areal coverage (p = 0.003). Conclusions Superior–posterior coverage of the femoral head by the posterior acetabular wall was insufficient in patients who sustained hip posterior dislocation or subluxation during sports activities.

Objective: Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) are effective in treating gaming disorder (GD). However, studies have not comprehensively evaluated the most effective NPIs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of NPIs on the prevention and reduction of GD in the general population with GD. Methods: We searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) for English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published till May 12, 2024, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB2). Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model, with effect sizes calculated using Hedges’s g and heterogeneity assessed using I2 statistics. Results: A total of 18 RCTs involving 1,950 participants were included. The NPIs included psychotherapy, behavioral interventions, and other strategies. The pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in GD severity (Hedges’s g=-0.82; 95% confidence interval, -1.23 to -0.52; I2=90.36%). Psychotherapy, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy, showed the most substantial effect (10 studies, 1,036 participants; Hedges’s g=-1.34). Behavioral interventions (4 studies, 456 participants) and prevention-focused interventions (6 studies, 1,164 participants) had smaller but positive effects. Subgroup analyses revealed greater effectiveness of treatment interventions in adults than in adolescents. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results despite high heterogeneity (I2=90.36%). Conclusion NPIs, particularly psychotherapy, are effective in reducing GD severity. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed robust, evidence-based treatment guidelines.

Objective: Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) are effective in treating gaming disorder (GD). However, studies have not comprehensively evaluated the most effective NPIs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of NPIs on the prevention and reduction of GD in the general population with GD. Methods: We searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) for English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published till May 12, 2024, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB2). Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model, with effect sizes calculated using Hedges’s g and heterogeneity assessed using I2 statistics. Results: A total of 18 RCTs involving 1,950 participants were included. The NPIs included psychotherapy, behavioral interventions, and other strategies. The pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in GD severity (Hedges’s g=-0.82; 95% confidence interval, -1.23 to -0.52; I2=90.36%). Psychotherapy, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy, showed the most substantial effect (10 studies, 1,036 participants; Hedges’s g=-1.34). Behavioral interventions (4 studies, 456 participants) and prevention-focused interventions (6 studies, 1,164 participants) had smaller but positive effects. Subgroup analyses revealed greater effectiveness of treatment interventions in adults than in adolescents. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results despite high heterogeneity (I2=90.36%). Conclusion NPIs, particularly psychotherapy, are effective in reducing GD severity. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed robust, evidence-based treatment guidelines.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed. Results: Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240). Conclusions This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

Background: Decreased acetabular version and posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head have been regarded as the leading causes of sport-related posterior hip dislocation or subluxation. This study aimed to examine the posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head in 21 patients who sustained posterior hip dislocation or subluxation during sport activities. Methods: The anterior and posterior acetabular rims on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images were delineated on the normal side in these patients. Radiologic signs, including crossover and posterior wall signs, were examined. The fracture center level (FCL) of the posterior acetabular wall was identified on axial CT images of the injured hip and the level was marked on the normal side. The difference in the femoral head coverage by posterior and anterior acetabular rims was measured by measuring the horizontal distance between anterior and posterior acetabular rims at the FCL (posterior-anterior [P-A] index). The acetabular version was measured at the femoral head and FCL using axial CT images of the normal side. Femoral head coverage by the posterior acetabular wall on the normal side was measured using 3D-CT (areal coverage). Results: The crossover and posterior wall signs were positive in 14 and 10 patients, respectively, in 3D-CT images. The FCL was evenly distributed in the proximal half of the posterior acetabular wall. Seven patients had a P-A index of ≤ 0, and all were positive for the crossover sign. The anterior acetabular rim was relatively prominent in these patients. The acetabular version was lower at the FCL than at the femoral head center (p < 0.001). The proximal half areal coverage of the posterior acetabular wall was significantly smaller than the whole areal coverage (p = 0.003). Conclusions Superior–posterior coverage of the femoral head by the posterior acetabular wall was insufficient in patients who sustained hip posterior dislocation or subluxation during sports activities.

Background: Decreased acetabular version and posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head have been regarded as the leading causes of sport-related posterior hip dislocation or subluxation. This study aimed to examine the posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head in 21 patients who sustained posterior hip dislocation or subluxation during sport activities. Methods: The anterior and posterior acetabular rims on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images were delineated on the normal side in these patients. Radiologic signs, including crossover and posterior wall signs, were examined. The fracture center level (FCL) of the posterior acetabular wall was identified on axial CT images of the injured hip and the level was marked on the normal side. The difference in the femoral head coverage by posterior and anterior acetabular rims was measured by measuring the horizontal distance between anterior and posterior acetabular rims at the FCL (posterior-anterior [P-A] index). The acetabular version was measured at the femoral head and FCL using axial CT images of the normal side. Femoral head coverage by the posterior acetabular wall on the normal side was measured using 3D-CT (areal coverage). Results: The crossover and posterior wall signs were positive in 14 and 10 patients, respectively, in 3D-CT images. The FCL was evenly distributed in the proximal half of the posterior acetabular wall. Seven patients had a P-A index of ≤ 0, and all were positive for the crossover sign. The anterior acetabular rim was relatively prominent in these patients. The acetabular version was lower at the FCL than at the femoral head center (p < 0.001). The proximal half areal coverage of the posterior acetabular wall was significantly smaller than the whole areal coverage (p = 0.003). Conclusions Superior–posterior coverage of the femoral head by the posterior acetabular wall was insufficient in patients who sustained hip posterior dislocation or subluxation during sports activities.