Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Background: Carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a serious global health problem. We investigated the clonal distribution and its association with the carbapenem resistance mechanisms of carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates from three Korean hospitals. Methods: A total of 155 carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates collected between 2011 and 2019 were analyzed for sequence types (STs), antimicrobial susceptibility, and carbapenem resistance mechanisms, including carbapenemase production, the presence of resistance genes, OprD mutations, and the hyperproduction of AmpC β-lactamase. Results: Sixty STs were identified in carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates.Two high-risk clones, ST235 (N = 41) and ST111 (N = 20), were predominant; however, sporadic STs were more prevalent than high-risk clones. The resistance rate to amikacin was the lowest (49.7%), whereas that to piperacillin was the highest (92.3%). Of the 155 carbapenem-non-susceptible isolates, 43 (27.7%) produced carbapenemases. Three metalloβ-lactamase (MBL) genes, blaIMP-6 (N = 38), blaVIM-2 (N = 3), and blaNDM-1 (N = 2), were detected. blaIMP-6 was detected in clonal complex 235 isolates. Two ST773 isolates carried blaNDM-1 and rmtB. Frameshift mutations in oprD were identified in all isolates tested, regardless of the presence of MBL genes. Hyperproduction of AmpC was detected in MBL gene–negative isolates. Conclusions Frameshift mutations in oprD combined with MBL production or hyperproduction of AmpC are responsible for carbapenem resistance in P. aeruginosa. Further attention is required to curb the emergence and spread of new carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa clones.

Background: Carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a serious global health problem. We investigated the clonal distribution and its association with the carbapenem resistance mechanisms of carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates from three Korean hospitals. Methods: A total of 155 carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates collected between 2011 and 2019 were analyzed for sequence types (STs), antimicrobial susceptibility, and carbapenem resistance mechanisms, including carbapenemase production, the presence of resistance genes, OprD mutations, and the hyperproduction of AmpC β-lactamase. Results: Sixty STs were identified in carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates.Two high-risk clones, ST235 (N = 41) and ST111 (N = 20), were predominant; however, sporadic STs were more prevalent than high-risk clones. The resistance rate to amikacin was the lowest (49.7%), whereas that to piperacillin was the highest (92.3%). Of the 155 carbapenem-non-susceptible isolates, 43 (27.7%) produced carbapenemases. Three metalloβ-lactamase (MBL) genes, blaIMP-6 (N = 38), blaVIM-2 (N = 3), and blaNDM-1 (N = 2), were detected. blaIMP-6 was detected in clonal complex 235 isolates. Two ST773 isolates carried blaNDM-1 and rmtB. Frameshift mutations in oprD were identified in all isolates tested, regardless of the presence of MBL genes. Hyperproduction of AmpC was detected in MBL gene–negative isolates. Conclusions Frameshift mutations in oprD combined with MBL production or hyperproduction of AmpC are responsible for carbapenem resistance in P. aeruginosa. Further attention is required to curb the emergence and spread of new carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa clones.

Background: Carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a serious global health problem. We investigated the clonal distribution and its association with the carbapenem resistance mechanisms of carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates from three Korean hospitals. Methods: A total of 155 carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates collected between 2011 and 2019 were analyzed for sequence types (STs), antimicrobial susceptibility, and carbapenem resistance mechanisms, including carbapenemase production, the presence of resistance genes, OprD mutations, and the hyperproduction of AmpC β-lactamase. Results: Sixty STs were identified in carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates.Two high-risk clones, ST235 (N = 41) and ST111 (N = 20), were predominant; however, sporadic STs were more prevalent than high-risk clones. The resistance rate to amikacin was the lowest (49.7%), whereas that to piperacillin was the highest (92.3%). Of the 155 carbapenem-non-susceptible isolates, 43 (27.7%) produced carbapenemases. Three metalloβ-lactamase (MBL) genes, blaIMP-6 (N = 38), blaVIM-2 (N = 3), and blaNDM-1 (N = 2), were detected. blaIMP-6 was detected in clonal complex 235 isolates. Two ST773 isolates carried blaNDM-1 and rmtB. Frameshift mutations in oprD were identified in all isolates tested, regardless of the presence of MBL genes. Hyperproduction of AmpC was detected in MBL gene–negative isolates. Conclusions Frameshift mutations in oprD combined with MBL production or hyperproduction of AmpC are responsible for carbapenem resistance in P. aeruginosa. Further attention is required to curb the emergence and spread of new carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa clones.

Background: Carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a serious global health problem. We investigated the clonal distribution and its association with the carbapenem resistance mechanisms of carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates from three Korean hospitals. Methods: A total of 155 carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates collected between 2011 and 2019 were analyzed for sequence types (STs), antimicrobial susceptibility, and carbapenem resistance mechanisms, including carbapenemase production, the presence of resistance genes, OprD mutations, and the hyperproduction of AmpC β-lactamase. Results: Sixty STs were identified in carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates.Two high-risk clones, ST235 (N = 41) and ST111 (N = 20), were predominant; however, sporadic STs were more prevalent than high-risk clones. The resistance rate to amikacin was the lowest (49.7%), whereas that to piperacillin was the highest (92.3%). Of the 155 carbapenem-non-susceptible isolates, 43 (27.7%) produced carbapenemases. Three metalloβ-lactamase (MBL) genes, blaIMP-6 (N = 38), blaVIM-2 (N = 3), and blaNDM-1 (N = 2), were detected. blaIMP-6 was detected in clonal complex 235 isolates. Two ST773 isolates carried blaNDM-1 and rmtB. Frameshift mutations in oprD were identified in all isolates tested, regardless of the presence of MBL genes. Hyperproduction of AmpC was detected in MBL gene–negative isolates. Conclusions Frameshift mutations in oprD combined with MBL production or hyperproduction of AmpC are responsible for carbapenem resistance in P. aeruginosa. Further attention is required to curb the emergence and spread of new carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa clones.

Purpose: Cybersickness is a type of motion sickness induced by virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) environments that presents symptoms including nausea, dizziness, and headaches. This study aimed to investigate how cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) alleviates motion sickness symptoms and modulates brain activity in individuals experiencing cybersickness after exposure to a VR environment. Methods: This study was performed on two groups of healthy adults with cybersickness symptoms. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either cathodal tDCS intervention or sham tDCS intervention. Brain activity during VR stimulation was measured by 38-channel functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). tDCS was administered to the right temporoparietal junction (TPJ) for 20 minutes at an intensity of 2mA, and the severity of cybersickness was assessed pre- and post-intervention using a simulator sickness questionnaire (SSQ).Result: Following the experiment, cybersickness symptoms in subjects who received cathodal tDCS intervention were reduced based on SSQ scores, whereas those who received sham tDCS showed no significant change. fNIRS analysis revealed that tDCS significantly diminished cortical activity in subjects with high activity in temporal and parietal lobes, whereas high cortical activity was maintained in these regions after intervention in subjects who received sham tDCS. Conclusion These findings suggest that cathodal tDCS applied to the right TPJ region in young adults experiencing cybersickness effectively reduces motion sickness induced by VR environments.