Background and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the 18- year change in the relative value scale (RVS) in otolaryngology in relation to other surgical departments so as to help make future policy decisions.Subjects and Method Data on RVSs and addition rates, the deparments of main managed care, frequency of practice, and number of specialists were collected for all surgeries and procedures conducted in 2004, 2008, 2013, 2018, and 2022. Among these, an analysis was conducted for nine surgical departments. The number of surgeries and procedure items, the median value of the RVS, and the usage amount (i.e., RVS of all items multiplied by the frequency of surgeries and procedures) were calculated. Results: Over the past 18 years, the increase in the number of surgeries, procedure items and RVS in otolaryngology has grown smaller than that in other surgical departments, and the usage has decreased very sharply; in essence, the usage per specialist has actually decreased compared to 18 years ago. Conclusion Compared to other departments, RVS in otorhinolaryngology has shown very little change over the past period of 18 years. It is necessary to reasonably increase the currently undervalued RVS in otorhinolaryngology, particularly focusing on surgeries and procedures.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Background and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the 18- year change in the relative value scale (RVS) in otolaryngology in relation to other surgical departments so as to help make future policy decisions.Subjects and Method Data on RVSs and addition rates, the deparments of main managed care, frequency of practice, and number of specialists were collected for all surgeries and procedures conducted in 2004, 2008, 2013, 2018, and 2022. Among these, an analysis was conducted for nine surgical departments. The number of surgeries and procedure items, the median value of the RVS, and the usage amount (i.e., RVS of all items multiplied by the frequency of surgeries and procedures) were calculated. Results: Over the past 18 years, the increase in the number of surgeries, procedure items and RVS in otolaryngology has grown smaller than that in other surgical departments, and the usage has decreased very sharply; in essence, the usage per specialist has actually decreased compared to 18 years ago. Conclusion Compared to other departments, RVS in otorhinolaryngology has shown very little change over the past period of 18 years. It is necessary to reasonably increase the currently undervalued RVS in otorhinolaryngology, particularly focusing on surgeries and procedures.

Background and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the 18- year change in the relative value scale (RVS) in otolaryngology in relation to other surgical departments so as to help make future policy decisions.Subjects and Method Data on RVSs and addition rates, the deparments of main managed care, frequency of practice, and number of specialists were collected for all surgeries and procedures conducted in 2004, 2008, 2013, 2018, and 2022. Among these, an analysis was conducted for nine surgical departments. The number of surgeries and procedure items, the median value of the RVS, and the usage amount (i.e., RVS of all items multiplied by the frequency of surgeries and procedures) were calculated. Results: Over the past 18 years, the increase in the number of surgeries, procedure items and RVS in otolaryngology has grown smaller than that in other surgical departments, and the usage has decreased very sharply; in essence, the usage per specialist has actually decreased compared to 18 years ago. Conclusion Compared to other departments, RVS in otorhinolaryngology has shown very little change over the past period of 18 years. It is necessary to reasonably increase the currently undervalued RVS in otorhinolaryngology, particularly focusing on surgeries and procedures.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.