Obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal anomaly (OHVIRA) syndrome is a rare Müllerian duct anomaly, commonly characterized by uterus didelphys, obstructed hemivagina, and ipsilateral renal agenesis. While these are the three most common genitourinary anomalies in OHVIRA syndrome, a spectrum of urogenital anomalies can be present. Knowledge of this spectrum is crucial for proper patient management and treatment planning. In this case series, we report on five patients with OHVIRA syndrome, each presenting with a urogenital anomaly other than the typical renal agenesis or uterus didelphys. We highlight the gynecological complications encountered, which clinicians and radiologists should be aware of.

Obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal anomaly (OHVIRA) syndrome is a rare Müllerian duct anomaly, commonly characterized by uterus didelphys, obstructed hemivagina, and ipsilateral renal agenesis. While these are the three most common genitourinary anomalies in OHVIRA syndrome, a spectrum of urogenital anomalies can be present. Knowledge of this spectrum is crucial for proper patient management and treatment planning. In this case series, we report on five patients with OHVIRA syndrome, each presenting with a urogenital anomaly other than the typical renal agenesis or uterus didelphys. We highlight the gynecological complications encountered, which clinicians and radiologists should be aware of.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the wound cosmesis of a single-incision approach on scar assessment after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Methods: This study included 32 patients undergoing single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and 61 patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer at 3 tertiary referral hospitals between September 2011 and December 2019. We modified and applied the Korean version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to assess cosmetic outcomes. To assess the interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient values for the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), the surgeons evaluated 5 images of postoperative scars. Results: No significant differences were observed in the time before the return of normal bowel function, time to sips of water and soft diet initiation, length of in-hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate. The SPLS group had a shorter total incision length than the MPLS group. The POSAS favored the SPLS approach, revealing significant differences in the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS), OSAS, and overall scores. The SPLS approach was an independent factor influencing the POSAS, PSAS, and OSAS scores. Eleven colorectal surgeons had a significantly substantial intraclass coefficient. Conclusion The cosmetic outcomes of SPLS as assessed by the patients and surgeons were superior to those of MPLS in colon cancer. Reducing the number of ports is an independent factor affecting scar assessment by patients and observers.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the wound cosmesis of a single-incision approach on scar assessment after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Methods: This study included 32 patients undergoing single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and 61 patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer at 3 tertiary referral hospitals between September 2011 and December 2019. We modified and applied the Korean version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to assess cosmetic outcomes. To assess the interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient values for the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), the surgeons evaluated 5 images of postoperative scars. Results: No significant differences were observed in the time before the return of normal bowel function, time to sips of water and soft diet initiation, length of in-hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate. The SPLS group had a shorter total incision length than the MPLS group. The POSAS favored the SPLS approach, revealing significant differences in the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS), OSAS, and overall scores. The SPLS approach was an independent factor influencing the POSAS, PSAS, and OSAS scores. Eleven colorectal surgeons had a significantly substantial intraclass coefficient. Conclusion The cosmetic outcomes of SPLS as assessed by the patients and surgeons were superior to those of MPLS in colon cancer. Reducing the number of ports is an independent factor affecting scar assessment by patients and observers.

Background: s/Aims: In recent years, many minimally invasive techniques have been introduced to reduce the number of ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), offering benefits such as reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes. ArtiSential®is a new multi-degree-of-freedom articulating laparoscopic instrument that incorporates the ergonomic features of robotic surgery, potentially overcoming the spatial limitations of laparoscopic surgery. ArtiSential® LC can be performed using only two ports. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of ArtiSential® LC with those of single-fulcrum LC. Methods: This retrospective study compared ArtiSential® LC and single-fulcrum LC among LCs performed for gallbladder (GB) stones at the same center, analyzing the basic characteristics of patients; intraoperative outcomes, such as operative time, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative GB rupture; and postoperative outcomes, such as length of hospital stay, incidence of postoperative complications, and postoperative pain. Results: A total of 88 and 63 patients underwent ArtiSential® LC and single-fulcrum LC for GB stones, respectively. Analysis showed that ArtiSential® LC resulted in significantly fewer cases of surgeries longer than 60 minutes (30 vs. 35 min, p = 0.009) and intraoperative GB ruptures (2 vs. 10, p = 0.007). In terms of postoperative outcomes, ArtiSential® LC showed better results in the respective visual analog scale (VAS) scores immediately after surgery (2.59 vs. 3.73, p < 0.001), and before discharge (1.44 vs. 2.02, p = 0.01). Conclusions ArtiSential® LC showed better results in terms of surgical outcomes, especially postoperative pain. Thus, ArtiSential®LC is considered the better option for patients, compared to single-fulcrum LC.

Purpose: This study aimed to define an optimal age cutoff for early-onset gastric cancer (EOGC) and compare its characteristics with those of late-onset gastric cancer (LOGC) using nationwide survey data. Methods: Using data from a nationwide survey, this comprehensive population-based study analyzed data spanning 3 years (2009, 2014, and 2019). The joinpoint analysis and interrupted time series (ITS) methodology were employed to identify age cutoffs for EOGC based on the sex ratio and tumor histology. Clinicopathologic characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between the EOGC and LOGC groups. Results: The age cutoff for defining EOGC was suggested to be 50 years, supported by joinpoint and ITS analyses. Early gastric cancer was predominantly present in the EOGC and LOGC groups. Patients with EOGC comprised 20.3% of the total study cohort and demonstrated a more advanced disease stage compared to patients with LOGC. However, patients with EOGC underwent more minimally invasive surgeries, experienced shorter hospital stays, and had lower postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. Conclusion This study proposes an age of ≤50 years as a criterion for defining EOGC and highlights its features compared to LOGC. Further research using this criterion should guide tailored treatment strategies and improve outcomes for young patients with gastric cancer.

Purpose: Multidisciplinary treatment (MDT) in gastric cancer is an effective approach for establishing treatment plans.However, the appropriateness of using “ratio of MDT” as an item for evaluating the adequacy of gastric cancer treatment in Korea has not been previously researched. The purpose of this study is to verify whether the “ratio of MDT” is appropriate as an item for gastric cancer adequacy evaluation from the surgeon’s perspective. Methods: This study involved 142 patients who received MDT at our hospital between December 2015 and January 2023.Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the date when gastric cancer adequacy evaluation was implemented; there were 71 patients before and after the evaluation was conducted, respectively. Based on electronic medical records, the initial plan prepared before the MDT clinic and the final plan prepared after the clinic were compared to determine whether the plan was changed. Results: The average age of patients who received MDT before and after the evaluation was 64.8 and 62.2 years, respectively. Overall, 50 and 21 patients were male (70.4%) and female (29.6%), respectively, in both groups. Before the evaluation, 26 patients (36.6%) who received MDT changed their treatment plans after visiting the clinic, and 15 patients (21.1%) who received MDT after the evaluation had their treatment plans modified. Groups who received MDT and changes in treatment plans were significantly correlated (P = 0.042). Conclusion Our findings suggest that including the “ratio of MDT” as an item of gastric cancer adequacy evaluation needs reassessment.