Purpose: According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer’s 8th Edition Manual, lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) is no longer considered a malignant disease, although it may be a precursor to the development of breast cancer. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinicopathological features and prognosis of LCIS. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed clinicopathological features and prognosis data of LCIS among patients who underwent breast surgery at Severance Hospital, Seoul, South Korea from 1991 to 2016. Results: Of the 47 patients, 49 cases of LCIS were confirmed by postoperative pathology. The mean patient age was 48.15±8.34 years. Most patients (81.6%) did not have palpable tumors at diagnosis, and 51.0% showed no microcalcification on mammography. Breast-conserving surgery was performed more frequently than total mastectomy (77.6% vs. 22.4%). The mean tumor size was 1.63±2.11 cm. There were only 3 cases of pleomorphic LCIS. Hormone receptor-positive tumors were noted in 47 cases, however, the hormone receptor status was unknown in the other 2 cases. There were no LCIS recurrences or deaths during the follow-up period (mean 56 months). Conclusion LCIS is often incidentally diagnosed without clinical symptoms, especially in women aged <50 years. The prognosis of LCIS is excellent in cases that are surgically treated.

Purpose: According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer’s 8th Edition Manual, lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) is no longer considered a malignant disease, although it may be a precursor to the development of breast cancer. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinicopathological features and prognosis of LCIS. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed clinicopathological features and prognosis data of LCIS among patients who underwent breast surgery at Severance Hospital, Seoul, South Korea from 1991 to 2016. Results: Of the 47 patients, 49 cases of LCIS were confirmed by postoperative pathology. The mean patient age was 48.15±8.34 years. Most patients (81.6%) did not have palpable tumors at diagnosis, and 51.0% showed no microcalcification on mammography. Breast-conserving surgery was performed more frequently than total mastectomy (77.6% vs. 22.4%). The mean tumor size was 1.63±2.11 cm. There were only 3 cases of pleomorphic LCIS. Hormone receptor-positive tumors were noted in 47 cases, however, the hormone receptor status was unknown in the other 2 cases. There were no LCIS recurrences or deaths during the follow-up period (mean 56 months). Conclusion LCIS is often incidentally diagnosed without clinical symptoms, especially in women aged <50 years. The prognosis of LCIS is excellent in cases that are surgically treated.

Purpose: There is a potential risk that lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) on preoperative biopsy might be diagnosed as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive carcinoma in the final pathology. This study aimed to evaluate the rate of upgrade of LCIS on preoperative biopsy to DCIS or invasive carcinoma. Materials and Methods: Data of 55 patients with LCIS on preoperative biopsy were analyzed. All patients underwent surgery between 1991 and 2016 at Severance Hospital in Seoul, Korea. We analyzed the rate of upgrade of preoperative LCIS to DCIS or invasive cancer in the final pathology. The clinicopathologic features related to the upgrade were evaluated. Results: The rate of upgrade of LCIS to DCIS or invasive carcinoma was 16.4% (9/55). In multivariate analysis, microcalcification and progesterone receptor expression were significantly associated with the upgrade of LCIS (p=0.023 and p=0.044, respectively). Conclusion The current study showed a relatively high rate of upgrade of LCIS on preoperative biopsy to DCIS or invasive cancer. The presence of microcalcification and progesterone receptor expression may be potential predictors of upgradation of LCIS on preoperative biopsy. Surgical excision of the LCIS during preoperative biopsy could be a management option to identify the concealed malignancy.

Purpose: Despite the widespread use of liquid skin adhesives (LSA), concerns persist regarding the increase in wound care costs. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LSA for surgical wound management. Methods: In this prospective, open-label, single-center randomized controlled trial, adults aged 19 years and older who were scheduled for elective minimally invasive colorectal surgeries were included. The participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: an n-butyl cyanoacrylate skin adhesive was used in the experimental group (LSA group), while a surgical skin stapler was employed in the control group (stapler group). The primary outcome measure was the sum of the total time required for wound management. Results: A total of 58 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups, with 29 patients in each group. The findings revealed comparable wound complication rates in the 2 groups (8 out of 29 in the LSA group vs. 5 out of 29 in the stapler group, P = 0.530). Notably, the LSA group had a significantly shorter wound management time (median 235 seconds vs. 1,201 seconds, P < 0.001) and similar wound management cost (median US dollar [USD] 50.6 vs. USD 54.6, P = 0.529) compared to the stapler group. Subgroup analysis showed that the LSA group had a shorter management time for uncomplicated wounds and a lower cost for complicated wounds. Conclusion LSA not only provides a safe alternative but also offers a resource-efficient option for wound management compared to staplers.

Purpose: Despite the widespread use of liquid skin adhesives (LSA), concerns persist regarding the increase in wound care costs. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LSA for surgical wound management. Methods: In this prospective, open-label, single-center randomized controlled trial, adults aged 19 years and older who were scheduled for elective minimally invasive colorectal surgeries were included. The participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: an n-butyl cyanoacrylate skin adhesive was used in the experimental group (LSA group), while a surgical skin stapler was employed in the control group (stapler group). The primary outcome measure was the sum of the total time required for wound management. Results: A total of 58 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups, with 29 patients in each group. The findings revealed comparable wound complication rates in the 2 groups (8 out of 29 in the LSA group vs. 5 out of 29 in the stapler group, P = 0.530). Notably, the LSA group had a significantly shorter wound management time (median 235 seconds vs. 1,201 seconds, P < 0.001) and similar wound management cost (median US dollar [USD] 50.6 vs. USD 54.6, P = 0.529) compared to the stapler group. Subgroup analysis showed that the LSA group had a shorter management time for uncomplicated wounds and a lower cost for complicated wounds. Conclusion LSA not only provides a safe alternative but also offers a resource-efficient option for wound management compared to staplers.

Purpose: Despite the widespread use of liquid skin adhesives (LSA), concerns persist regarding the increase in wound care costs. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LSA for surgical wound management. Methods: In this prospective, open-label, single-center randomized controlled trial, adults aged 19 years and older who were scheduled for elective minimally invasive colorectal surgeries were included. The participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: an n-butyl cyanoacrylate skin adhesive was used in the experimental group (LSA group), while a surgical skin stapler was employed in the control group (stapler group). The primary outcome measure was the sum of the total time required for wound management. Results: A total of 58 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups, with 29 patients in each group. The findings revealed comparable wound complication rates in the 2 groups (8 out of 29 in the LSA group vs. 5 out of 29 in the stapler group, P = 0.530). Notably, the LSA group had a significantly shorter wound management time (median 235 seconds vs. 1,201 seconds, P < 0.001) and similar wound management cost (median US dollar [USD] 50.6 vs. USD 54.6, P = 0.529) compared to the stapler group. Subgroup analysis showed that the LSA group had a shorter management time for uncomplicated wounds and a lower cost for complicated wounds. Conclusion LSA not only provides a safe alternative but also offers a resource-efficient option for wound management compared to staplers.

Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.

Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.

Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.

Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.