Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

Background: The choice of an appropriate type of orthosis depends on the patient’s specific condition and needs. Different types of orthoses can affect plantar pressure distribution during certain gait patterns. Toe and heel gaits are common patterns of gait assigned for optimal recovery in patients with foot or ankle injuries. This study aimed to evaluate differences in plantar pressure between postoperative shoes and walker boots during toe and heel gaits in healthy individuals. Methods: A total of 30 healthy individuals with a mean age of 21.7 ± 1.2 years were included in this study. Two types of gaits, toe and heel, were performed while wearing each orthosis on the right side of the foot. A standardized running shoe was worn on the left side of the foot. Plantar pressure variables including contact area, peak pressure, and maximum force were collected using the Pedar-X in-shoe pressure measuring system. Results: During toe gait, while both orthoses demonstrated similar offloading in the hindfoot areas, walker boots were superior in reducing the peak pressure (first toe, p = 0.003; second to fifth toes, p < 0.001) and contact area (first toe, p = 0.003; second to fifth toes, p = 0.003) in the forefoot areas. During heel gait, both orthoses demonstrated similar offloading in the toe areas; however, the walker boots were superior in reducing the peak pressure in the lateral hindfoot (p < 0.001). Conclusions The results of our study can serve as a guideline for orthopedic physicians in prescribing an appropriate type of orthosis during specific types of gait for patients following foot and ankle injury and postoperative recovery.

Background: Although symptomatic local recurrence (SLR) of spinal metastasis is relatively common after aggressive surgery, there have been few studies on SLR according to the extent of tumor removal. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of SLR after surgery in spinal metastasis and analyze the risk factors of SLR. Methods: This study included patients with spinal metastasis to all 3 vertebral columns. SLR was defined as the occurrence of new symptoms, confirmed by radiologic regrowth of tumor. The extent of tumor removal was classified into 3 types (corpectomy, separation surgery, and only posterior column removal). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the SLR rate after surgery.The presumed risk factors of SLR were evaluated using log-rank test and Cox regression analysis. Results: This study included 102 patients with a mean follow-up period of 17.7 months (range, 3–84 months). After surgical treatment, SLR was confirmed in 35 patients (34.3%). Kaplan-Meier analysis predicted that the incidence of SLR was 4.4% at 6 months, 21.5% at 12 months, 34.0% at 18 months, and 42.7% at 24 months. In the univariate analysis, the primary malignancy site, number of vertebral metastases, and surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy were significant (p = 0.042, p = 0.048, and p = 0.008, respectively). No significant differences were observed in the extent of tumor removal (p = 0.536). In the multivariate analysis, the significant risk factors of SLR included only previous radiation therapy (p = 0.012). The risk of SLR was 2.8 times higher in patients who received surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy than in those without it. Conclusions The SLR of spinal metastasis was predicted in 21.5% of patients at 1 year after surgical treatment. The extent of tumor removal did not seem to affect SLR. Surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy was confirmed as the only substantial risk factor. Therefore, the tumor's response to preoperative radiation therapy is the most important factor in determining SLR.