1.Small bowel obstruction after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.
Kyu Hak SHIM ; Chul MOON ; Hee YOO
Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology 1992;8(2):129-135
No abstract available.
Rectal Neoplasms*
2.Clinical Significance of the Metastatic Lymph-Node Ratio in Rectal Cancer.
Annals of Coloproctology 2013;29(3):89-90
No abstract available.
Rectal Neoplasms
3.Clinical Significance of the Metastatic Lymph-Node Ratio in Rectal Cancer.
Annals of Coloproctology 2013;29(3):89-90
No abstract available.
Rectal Neoplasms
4.The 3-Dimensional Analysis of the Efficacy of a Belly-Board Device for the Displacement of Small Bowel During Pelvic Irradiation.
The Journal of the Korean Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 2008;26(4):271-279
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of a belly-board device (BBD) in reducing the volume of small bowel during four-field pelvic irradiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two cancer patients (14 uterine cervical cancer, 6 rectal cancer, and 2 endometrial cancer) scheduled to receive pelvic irradiation were selected for this study. Two sets of CT images were taken with and without the belly-board device using the Siemens 16 channel CT scanner. All patients were set in the prone position. The CT images were transferred to a treatment planning system for dose calculation and volume measurements. The external surfaces of small bowel and the bladder were contoured on all CT scans and the 4-pelvic fields were added. The dose-volume-histogram of the bladder and small bowel, with and without the BBD, were plotted and analyzed. RESULTS: In all patients, the total small bowel volume included in the irradiated fields was reduced when the BBD was used. The mean volume reduction was 35% (range, 1~79%) and was statistically significant (p<0.001). The reduction in small bowel volume receiving 10~100% of the prescribed dose was statistically significant when the BBD was used in all cases. Almost no change in the total bladder volume involved was observed in the field (<8 cc, p=0.762). However, the bladder volume receiving 90% of the prescribed dose was 100% in 15/22 patients (68%) and 90~99% in 7/22 patients (32%) with the BBD. In comparison, the bladder volume receiving 90% of the prescribed dose was 100% in 10/22 patients (45%), 90~99% in 7/22 patients (32%), and 80~89% in 5/22 patients (23%) without the BBD. When the BBD was used, an increase in the bladder volume receiving a high dose range was observed. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the use of a BBD for the treatment of cancer in the pelvic area significantly improves small bowel sparing. However, since the BBD pushed the bladder into the treatment field, the bladder volume receiving the high dose could increase. Therefore it is recommended to be considerate in using the BBD when bladder damage is of concern.
Rectal Neoplasms
5.Transanal local excision in early rectal cancer: report of 1 case.
Kwang Soo YOON ; Jin Ho LEE ; Min Young KIM ; Nam Cheon CHO ; Dae Sung KIM ; Byoung Seon RHOE ; Soo Yong KIM
Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology 1992;8(3):327-334
No abstract available.
Rectal Neoplasms*
6.A clinical analysis of rectal cancer.
Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology 1993;9(3):243-250
No abstract available.
Rectal Neoplasms*
7.Factors Influencing Oncologic Outcomes after Tumor-specific Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer.
Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology 2012;28(2):71-72
No abstract available.
Rectal Neoplasms
8.Sexual Function After a Proctectomy for the Treatment of Rectal Cancer.
Annals of Coloproctology 2014;30(5):205-205
No abstract available.
Rectal Neoplasms*
9.Clinical observation on resectable cases after preoperative radiation therapy in initially unresectable rectal cancer.
Ho Se HAN ; Yong Shin KIM ; Kwang Yun KIM
Journal of the Korean Surgical Society 1992;43(4):560-566
No abstract available.
Rectal Neoplasms*
10.Robotic Prostatectomy in a Patient with a Miles' Operation.
Won Sik HAM ; Sang Woon KIM ; Young Deuk CHOI
Korean Journal of Urology 2008;49(5):464-468
Robotic prostatectomy(RP) has recently been added to the treatments for localized prostate cancer and it is increasingly being utilized at many centers. The benefits of minimally invasive surgery, the enhanced functional outcomes and the increased patient demand have led to the popularity of this surgical technique. However, RP has been reported to be technically challenging in patients with a history of prior complex lower abdominal/pelvic surgery, morbid obesity, a large prostate, prior pelvic irradiation, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy or prior prostate surgery. We report here on our experience of robotic prostatectomy (RP) in a prostate cancer patient with a Miles's operation and this pateint had undergone adjuvant chemotherapy and pelvic irradiation for rectal cancer.
Rectal Neoplasms