1.Evaluation of health-related quality of life and performance in intestinal transplant and rehabilitation patients: a cross-sectional study
Eunju JANG ; Mi-hyeong KIM ; Jeong-kye HWANG ; Sun Cheol PARK ; Sang Seob YUN ; Myung Duk LEE ; Jae Hee CHUNG
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2025;108(1):31-38
Purpose:
We aimed to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in intestinal failure (IF) patients after different modes of intestinal rehabilitation.
Methods:
HRQoL was assessed using the generic 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36, ver. 2) and visual analogue scale (VAS) in 6 different areas: diet, sleep, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, and other symptoms.
Results:
Twenty-two patients completed the questionnaires, of which 7 had received intestinal transplant (ITx), 9 were continuing home total parenteral nutrition (HPN), and 6 had tapered off total parenteral nutrition (TPN). SF-36 physical component summary scores were highest in the ITx group (median, 65.6; interquartile range [IQR], 31.6–80.3) compared to the HPN (median, 48.4; IQR, 44.7–66.3) or tapered group (median, 54.2; IQR, 45.2–61.6). Mental component summary scores were lowest in the ITx group (median, 48.8; IQR, 37.1–63.6), compared to the TPN (median, 60.2; IQR, 41.6–78.5) or tapered group (median, 51.0; IQR, 48.8–56.0). Differences were not significant in all items of the SF-36. VAS scores showed that patients in the ITx group showed the best results in diet (0.9), gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (1.4), and musculoskeletal pain (2.4). There was a significant difference in sleep (P = 0.036), with the ITx (1.43) and HPN groups (1.33) showing better outcomes compared with the tapered group (4.67). Patients in the tapered group showed the least favorable results in all performance areas, except GI symptoms.
Conclusion
SF-36 did not show a significant difference between the ITx, HPN, and tapered groups, but VAS showed a significant difference in sleep between groups. Further studies, including serial data, will allow a better understanding of the effects of different modes of intestinal rehabilitation.
2.Hemicentral Retinal Vein Occlusion: Clinical Outcomes and Visual Prognostic Factors
Dong Woo LEE ; Do Yun SONG ; Mi-Ji KIM ; Yong Wun CHO ; Woong-Sun YOO ; In Young CHUNG
Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2025;66(2):94-100
Purpose:
To confirm the clinical features of hemicentral retinal vein occlusion and identify predictors of visual outcomes.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients diagnosed with hemicentral retinal vein occlusion between January 2018 and December 2022 and followed for more than 6 months. Patients underwent intravitreal injections as necessary for intraretinal edema. Visual acuity, central macular thickness, ellipsoid zone damage, and the location of inner retinal layer edema were assessed. Patients were categorized into groups A and group B based on the visual acuity at 6 months.
Results:
In total, 20 eyes were followed, with 15 eyes observed for up to 12 months. Seven patients (35.0%) had diabetes and 11 (55.0%) had hypertension. There was a correlation between poor vision at 6 months and hypertension (p = 0.033). The visual acuity of all patients improved from a logMAR of 0.96 at the initial visit to a logMAR of 0.35 at 6 months (p = 0.005). In the group with good initial visual acuity, there were no significant changes in visual acuity during the follow-up period (p = 0.444). The group with good visual acuity at 6 months had a lower degree of photoreceptor ellipsoid zone disruption compared to the group with poor initial vision, indicating a normal structure (p = 0.015).
Conclusions
During follow-up of patients with hemicentral retinal vein occlusion, overall visual acuity improved over time. Patients with good initial acuity maintained it. Favorable visual outcomes can be expected if the ellipsoid zone has a normal structure at the time of the first examination.
3.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
4.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
5.Evaluation of health-related quality of life and performance in intestinal transplant and rehabilitation patients: a cross-sectional study
Eunju JANG ; Mi-hyeong KIM ; Jeong-kye HWANG ; Sun Cheol PARK ; Sang Seob YUN ; Myung Duk LEE ; Jae Hee CHUNG
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2025;108(1):31-38
Purpose:
We aimed to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in intestinal failure (IF) patients after different modes of intestinal rehabilitation.
Methods:
HRQoL was assessed using the generic 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36, ver. 2) and visual analogue scale (VAS) in 6 different areas: diet, sleep, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, and other symptoms.
Results:
Twenty-two patients completed the questionnaires, of which 7 had received intestinal transplant (ITx), 9 were continuing home total parenteral nutrition (HPN), and 6 had tapered off total parenteral nutrition (TPN). SF-36 physical component summary scores were highest in the ITx group (median, 65.6; interquartile range [IQR], 31.6–80.3) compared to the HPN (median, 48.4; IQR, 44.7–66.3) or tapered group (median, 54.2; IQR, 45.2–61.6). Mental component summary scores were lowest in the ITx group (median, 48.8; IQR, 37.1–63.6), compared to the TPN (median, 60.2; IQR, 41.6–78.5) or tapered group (median, 51.0; IQR, 48.8–56.0). Differences were not significant in all items of the SF-36. VAS scores showed that patients in the ITx group showed the best results in diet (0.9), gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (1.4), and musculoskeletal pain (2.4). There was a significant difference in sleep (P = 0.036), with the ITx (1.43) and HPN groups (1.33) showing better outcomes compared with the tapered group (4.67). Patients in the tapered group showed the least favorable results in all performance areas, except GI symptoms.
Conclusion
SF-36 did not show a significant difference between the ITx, HPN, and tapered groups, but VAS showed a significant difference in sleep between groups. Further studies, including serial data, will allow a better understanding of the effects of different modes of intestinal rehabilitation.
6.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
7.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
8.Hemicentral Retinal Vein Occlusion: Clinical Outcomes and Visual Prognostic Factors
Dong Woo LEE ; Do Yun SONG ; Mi-Ji KIM ; Yong Wun CHO ; Woong-Sun YOO ; In Young CHUNG
Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2025;66(2):94-100
Purpose:
To confirm the clinical features of hemicentral retinal vein occlusion and identify predictors of visual outcomes.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients diagnosed with hemicentral retinal vein occlusion between January 2018 and December 2022 and followed for more than 6 months. Patients underwent intravitreal injections as necessary for intraretinal edema. Visual acuity, central macular thickness, ellipsoid zone damage, and the location of inner retinal layer edema were assessed. Patients were categorized into groups A and group B based on the visual acuity at 6 months.
Results:
In total, 20 eyes were followed, with 15 eyes observed for up to 12 months. Seven patients (35.0%) had diabetes and 11 (55.0%) had hypertension. There was a correlation between poor vision at 6 months and hypertension (p = 0.033). The visual acuity of all patients improved from a logMAR of 0.96 at the initial visit to a logMAR of 0.35 at 6 months (p = 0.005). In the group with good initial visual acuity, there were no significant changes in visual acuity during the follow-up period (p = 0.444). The group with good visual acuity at 6 months had a lower degree of photoreceptor ellipsoid zone disruption compared to the group with poor initial vision, indicating a normal structure (p = 0.015).
Conclusions
During follow-up of patients with hemicentral retinal vein occlusion, overall visual acuity improved over time. Patients with good initial acuity maintained it. Favorable visual outcomes can be expected if the ellipsoid zone has a normal structure at the time of the first examination.
9.Evaluation of health-related quality of life and performance in intestinal transplant and rehabilitation patients: a cross-sectional study
Eunju JANG ; Mi-hyeong KIM ; Jeong-kye HWANG ; Sun Cheol PARK ; Sang Seob YUN ; Myung Duk LEE ; Jae Hee CHUNG
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2025;108(1):31-38
Purpose:
We aimed to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in intestinal failure (IF) patients after different modes of intestinal rehabilitation.
Methods:
HRQoL was assessed using the generic 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36, ver. 2) and visual analogue scale (VAS) in 6 different areas: diet, sleep, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, and other symptoms.
Results:
Twenty-two patients completed the questionnaires, of which 7 had received intestinal transplant (ITx), 9 were continuing home total parenteral nutrition (HPN), and 6 had tapered off total parenteral nutrition (TPN). SF-36 physical component summary scores were highest in the ITx group (median, 65.6; interquartile range [IQR], 31.6–80.3) compared to the HPN (median, 48.4; IQR, 44.7–66.3) or tapered group (median, 54.2; IQR, 45.2–61.6). Mental component summary scores were lowest in the ITx group (median, 48.8; IQR, 37.1–63.6), compared to the TPN (median, 60.2; IQR, 41.6–78.5) or tapered group (median, 51.0; IQR, 48.8–56.0). Differences were not significant in all items of the SF-36. VAS scores showed that patients in the ITx group showed the best results in diet (0.9), gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (1.4), and musculoskeletal pain (2.4). There was a significant difference in sleep (P = 0.036), with the ITx (1.43) and HPN groups (1.33) showing better outcomes compared with the tapered group (4.67). Patients in the tapered group showed the least favorable results in all performance areas, except GI symptoms.
Conclusion
SF-36 did not show a significant difference between the ITx, HPN, and tapered groups, but VAS showed a significant difference in sleep between groups. Further studies, including serial data, will allow a better understanding of the effects of different modes of intestinal rehabilitation.
10.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail