Purpose: Robot-assisted surgery is readily applied to every type of colorectal surgeries. However, studies showing the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery (RS) have dealt with rectal cancer more than colon cancer. This study aimed to investigate how technical advantages of RS can translate into actual clinical outcomes that represent postoperative systemic response. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases in a single tertiary medical center in Korea. Patients with primary colon cancer who underwent curative resection between 2006 and 2012 were included. Propensity score matching was done to adjust baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, tumor profile, pathologic stage, operating surgeon, surgery extent) between open surgery (OS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and RS groups. Results: After propensity score matching, there were 66 patients in each group for analysis, and there was no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics. Maximal postoperative leukocyte count was lowest in the RS group and highest in the OS group (P=0.021). Similar results were observed for postoperative neutrophil count (P=0.024). Postoperative prognostic nutritional index was highest in the RS group and lowest in the OS group (P<0.001). The time taken to first flatus and soft diet resumption was longest in the OS group and shortest in the RS group (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). Among all groups, other short-term postoperative outcomes such as hospital stay and complications did not show significant difference, and oncological survival results were similar. Conclusion Better postoperative inflammatory indices in the RS group may correlate with their faster recovery of bowel motility and diet resumption compared to LS and OS groups.

Purpose: Robot-assisted surgery is readily applied to every type of colorectal surgeries. However, studies showing the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery (RS) have dealt with rectal cancer more than colon cancer. This study aimed to investigate how technical advantages of RS can translate into actual clinical outcomes that represent postoperative systemic response. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases in a single tertiary medical center in Korea. Patients with primary colon cancer who underwent curative resection between 2006 and 2012 were included. Propensity score matching was done to adjust baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, tumor profile, pathologic stage, operating surgeon, surgery extent) between open surgery (OS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and RS groups. Results: After propensity score matching, there were 66 patients in each group for analysis, and there was no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics. Maximal postoperative leukocyte count was lowest in the RS group and highest in the OS group (P=0.021). Similar results were observed for postoperative neutrophil count (P=0.024). Postoperative prognostic nutritional index was highest in the RS group and lowest in the OS group (P<0.001). The time taken to first flatus and soft diet resumption was longest in the OS group and shortest in the RS group (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). Among all groups, other short-term postoperative outcomes such as hospital stay and complications did not show significant difference, and oncological survival results were similar. Conclusion Better postoperative inflammatory indices in the RS group may correlate with their faster recovery of bowel motility and diet resumption compared to LS and OS groups.

Purpose: Robot-assisted surgery is readily applied to every type of colorectal surgeries. However, studies showing the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery (RS) have dealt with rectal cancer more than colon cancer. This study aimed to investigate how technical advantages of RS can translate into actual clinical outcomes that represent postoperative systemic response. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases in a single tertiary medical center in Korea. Patients with primary colon cancer who underwent curative resection between 2006 and 2012 were included. Propensity score matching was done to adjust baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, tumor profile, pathologic stage, operating surgeon, surgery extent) between open surgery (OS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and RS groups. Results: After propensity score matching, there were 66 patients in each group for analysis, and there was no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics. Maximal postoperative leukocyte count was lowest in the RS group and highest in the OS group (P=0.021). Similar results were observed for postoperative neutrophil count (P=0.024). Postoperative prognostic nutritional index was highest in the RS group and lowest in the OS group (P<0.001). The time taken to first flatus and soft diet resumption was longest in the OS group and shortest in the RS group (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). Among all groups, other short-term postoperative outcomes such as hospital stay and complications did not show significant difference, and oncological survival results were similar. Conclusion Better postoperative inflammatory indices in the RS group may correlate with their faster recovery of bowel motility and diet resumption compared to LS and OS groups.

Purpose: Robot-assisted surgery is readily applied to every type of colorectal surgeries. However, studies showing the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery (RS) have dealt with rectal cancer more than colon cancer. This study aimed to investigate how technical advantages of RS can translate into actual clinical outcomes that represent postoperative systemic response. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases in a single tertiary medical center in Korea. Patients with primary colon cancer who underwent curative resection between 2006 and 2012 were included. Propensity score matching was done to adjust baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, tumor profile, pathologic stage, operating surgeon, surgery extent) between open surgery (OS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and RS groups. Results: After propensity score matching, there were 66 patients in each group for analysis, and there was no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics. Maximal postoperative leukocyte count was lowest in the RS group and highest in the OS group (P=0.021). Similar results were observed for postoperative neutrophil count (P=0.024). Postoperative prognostic nutritional index was highest in the RS group and lowest in the OS group (P<0.001). The time taken to first flatus and soft diet resumption was longest in the OS group and shortest in the RS group (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). Among all groups, other short-term postoperative outcomes such as hospital stay and complications did not show significant difference, and oncological survival results were similar. Conclusion Better postoperative inflammatory indices in the RS group may correlate with their faster recovery of bowel motility and diet resumption compared to LS and OS groups.

Purpose: Robot-assisted surgery is readily applied to every type of colorectal surgeries. However, studies showing the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery (RS) have dealt with rectal cancer more than colon cancer. This study aimed to investigate how technical advantages of RS can translate into actual clinical outcomes that represent postoperative systemic response. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases in a single tertiary medical center in Korea. Patients with primary colon cancer who underwent curative resection between 2006 and 2012 were included. Propensity score matching was done to adjust baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, tumor profile, pathologic stage, operating surgeon, surgery extent) between open surgery (OS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and RS groups. Results: After propensity score matching, there were 66 patients in each group for analysis, and there was no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics. Maximal postoperative leukocyte count was lowest in the RS group and highest in the OS group (P=0.021). Similar results were observed for postoperative neutrophil count (P=0.024). Postoperative prognostic nutritional index was highest in the RS group and lowest in the OS group (P<0.001). The time taken to first flatus and soft diet resumption was longest in the OS group and shortest in the RS group (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). Among all groups, other short-term postoperative outcomes such as hospital stay and complications did not show significant difference, and oncological survival results were similar. Conclusion Better postoperative inflammatory indices in the RS group may correlate with their faster recovery of bowel motility and diet resumption compared to LS and OS groups.

Purpose: Although advancements in medical treatments have been made, approximately half of patients with intestinal Crohn’s disease (CD) require intestinal resections during their lifetime. It is well-known that the nutritional status of CD patients can impact postoperative morbidity. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical significance of prognostic nutritional index (PNI) in patients with intestinal CD who underwent primary bowel resection. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively investigated patients who were diagnosed with CD and underwent intestinal surgery at Severance Hospital between January 2005 and October 2018. The patients were divided into two groups: PNI ≤40 (n=150) and PNI >40 (n=77). We assessed the clinical significance of PNI in terms of the incidence of postoperative infectious complications (PICs) and the postoperative recurrence of CD. Results: The low PNI group had significantly higher rates of infectious complications (32.0% vs. 10.4%, p=0.001) compared to the high PNI group. Multivariable analysis identified low PNI (≤40) and longer operation time (>180 min) as independent risk factors associated with PICs [odds ratio (OR)=2.754, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.140–6.649, p=0.024; OR=2.986, 95% CI=1.451–6.143, p=0.003]. PICs were significantly associated with surgical recurrence (hazard ratio=2.217, 95% CI=1.064–4.617, p=0.034). Conclusion Preoperative PNI could serve as a predictive factor for PICs in CD patients who undergo intestinal resection. Additionally, PICs are significantly associated with a higher risk of surgical recurrence in CD.

Background: Many studies have reported that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) provides satisfactory treatment comparable to other fusion methods. However, in the case of MI-TLIF, there are concerns about the long-term outcome compared to conventional bilateral PLIF due to the small amount of disc removal and the lack of autogenous bone graft. Long-term follow-up studies are still lacking as most of the previous reports have follow-up periods of up to 5 years. Methods: Thirty patients who underwent MI-TLIF were followed up for > 10 years (mean, 11.1 years). Interbody fusion rates were determined using a modified Bridwell grading system.Adjacent segment disease (ASD) was defined as radiological adjacent segment degeneration (R-ASDeg) as seen on plain X-rays; reoperated adjacent segment disease referred to the subsequent need for revision surgery. Clinical outcomes after surgery were assessed based on back and leg pain as well as the Oswestry disability index (ODI). Results: The overall radiological fusion rate, at the 1-, 5-, and 10-year follow-up was 77.1%, 91.4%, and 94.3%, respectively. The incidence of R-ASDeg 1, 5, and 10 years after surgery was 6.7%, 16.7%, and 43.3% at the proximal adjacent segment and 4.8%, 14.3%, and 28.6% at the distal adjacent segment, respectively. R-ASDeg at either the proximal or distal segment was determined in 50.0% of the patients 10 years postoperatively. All clinical parameters improved significantly during follow-up, although the ODI and the visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain at the 10-year follow-up were significantly worse in the R-ASDeg group than in the other patients (P = 0.009, P = 0.040). Conclusion MI-TLIF improved both clinical and radiological outcomes, and the improvements were maintained for up to 10 years after surgery. However, R-ASDeg developed in up to 50% of the patients within 10 years, and both leg pain on the VAS and the ODI were worse in patients with R-ASDeg.

Degenerative disc disease has traditionally been thought of as low back pain caused by changes in the nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrous, in recent studies, however, changes in the upper and lower endplates cause degeneration of the disc, resulting in mechanical pressure, inflammatory reactions and low back pain. Recently, the bone marrow of the vertebral body-endplate-nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrous were considered as a single unit, and the relationship was explained. Once the endplate is damaged, it eventually aggravates the degeneration of the bone marrow, nucleus pulposus, and annulus fibrosus. In this process, the compression force of the annulus fibrosus increases, and an inflammatory reaction occurs due to inflammatory mediators. Hence, the sinuvertebral nerves and the basivertebral nerves are stimulated to cause back pain. If these changes become chronic, degenerative changes such as Modic changes occur in the bone marrow in the vertebrae. Finally, in the case of degenerative intervertebral disc disease, the bone marrow of the vertebral body-endplate-nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrous need to be considered as a single unit. Therefore, when treating patients with chronic low back pain, it is necessary to consider the changes in the nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrosus and a lesion of the endplate.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and NELSON trial showed that low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) screening significantly reduced the mortality form lung cancer. Although cancer survivors are known to have high risk for second malignant neoplasm (SMN), the usefulness of LDCT screening for lung cancer in cancer survivors is not clear. METHODS: Between August 2016 and August 2017, 633 long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors visited the survivorship clinic in Cancer Prevention Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. We surveyed the smoking status and recommended LDCT screening to ever-smoking CRC survivors aged 55–80 years. The participants were classified into three risk groups: risk group 1 (RG1) who met the NLST criteria (Age 55–74 years, ≥ 30 pack-years of smoking, smoking cessation < 15 years); risk group 2 (RG2) who would not meet the NLST criteria but were at increased 6-year risk of lung cancer (PLCOM2012 ≥ 0.0151); risk group 3 (RG3) who did not meet any of the criteria above. RESULTS: Among 176 ever-smoking CRC survivors, 173 (98.3%) were male, 32 (18.2%) were current-smoker, and median age was 66 years (range, 55–79 years). We found 38 positive findings (non-calcified nodule ≥ 4 mm), 8 clinically significant findings, 66 minor abnormalities, and 64 negative findings on LDCT. Positive findings were identified in 15 of 79 (19.0%) of RG1, in 9 of 36 (25%) of RG2, and in 14 of 61 (23.0%) of RG3. Second primary lung cancers were found in 2 patients of RG2, and in 1 patient of RG3. SMN was most frequently found in RG2 (11 of 36 patients, 30.6%), compared with RG1 (12.7%) or RG3 (9.8%) (P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: LDCT screening for lung cancer in Korean CRC survivors is feasible. Well-designed clinical trial for defining high risk patients for lung cancer among CRC survivors is needed.
Colorectal Neoplasms ; Early Detection of Cancer ; Humans ; Lung Neoplasms ; Lung ; Male ; Mass Screening ; Mortality ; Neoplasms, Second Primary ; Republic of Korea ; Seoul ; Smoke ; Smoking ; Smoking Cessation ; Survival Rate ; Survivors ; Thorax

No abstract available.
Calcinosis* ; Humans ; Siblings*