BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: We present our experience of laparoscopic liver resection for various liver diseases. METHODS: From April 2008 to August 2012 in Chungnam National University, 68 of 253 liver resections were performed laparoscopically. During the first year, laparoscopy-assisted liver resection was mainly performed and subsequently totally laparoscopic liver resection was the main operative type. Surgery type for treatment purposes was decided preoperatively. Clinical data were collected retrospectively and analyzed. RESULTS: Preoperatively, 43 patients (63.2%) were diagnosed with benign disease, 19 patients (27.9%) were malignant liver tumors and 6 patients (8.8%) were indeterminate liver tumor but favorable towards malignancy. Anatomical major liver resection was performed in 58 cases (85.3%) and 10 cases (14.7%) were non-anatomical resection. Left hemihepatectomy was performed in 38 cases (55.8%) followed by left lateral sectionectomy in 18 cases (26.5%), and segment IV and IVa segmentectomy, were each in 1 case. Mean operation time was 235.0 minutes (range, 60-470) and 14 patients (18.6%) had intraoperative transfusion. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 10.2 days (range, 4-32). Mean operation time of laparoscopy-assisted left lobectomy was 317 minutes and totally laparoscopic left lobectomy was 281 minutes, but there was no significant statistical difference between these two operation types. There were 11 episodes of postoperative complications in 8 patients. There was no mortality after laparoscopic liver resection. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that laparoscopic liver resection is a feasible operation, but needs to be carefully conducted in malignant tumors.
Chungcheongnam-do ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Length of Stay ; Liver Diseases* ; Liver* ; Mastectomy, Segmental ; Mortality ; Postoperative Complications ; Retrospective Studies

BACKGROUND: Epoxy resin compounds are one of the common causes of occupational allergic contact dermatitis. In Korea, most cases of allergic contact dermatitis from epoxy resin compounds have been caused by the epoxy resin itself. We report a rare case of allergic contact dermatitis which was caused by epichlorohydrin, an ingredient of epoxy resin and 2,4,6-tris-(dimethylaminomethyl)phenol (tris-DMP), a kind of hardeners. CASE REPORT: A 43-year-old man, who had worked at the epoxy resin glue manufacturing factory since 1999, presented with mild and intermittent erythematous papules and rashes on his face, neck, trunk, and both arms. He was dealing with epoxy resin, epichlorohydrin, bisphenol A and hardeners. After a new hardener was added in August 2008, his skin lesions worsened from what he had experienced in the past. A skin patch test was performed to identify the causative chemicals of the skin lesion. Epichlorohydrin and tris-DMP elicited positive reactions after 48 hours and increased after 96 hours. CONCLUSION: This case confirmed occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by epichlorohydrin and tris-DMP, an ingredient of epoxy resin and a hardener, respectively.
Adhesives ; Adult ; Arm ; Benzhydryl Compounds ; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact ; Epichlorohydrin ; Exanthema ; Humans ; Korea ; Neck ; Patch Tests ; Phenols ; Skin

Purpose: Following the withdrawal of propacetamol in Europe owing to safety issues, the regulatory authority of South Korea requested a post-marketing surveillance study to investigate its safety profile. Materials and Methods: We conducted nested case-control and case-time-control (CTC) analyses of cases and controls identified for outcomes of interest, including anaphylaxis, thrombosis, and Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS), using the claims database of South Korea, 2010–2019. Risk-set sampling was used to match each case with up to 10 controls for age, sex, cohort entry date, and follow-up duration. Exposure to anaphylaxis, thrombosis, and SJS was assessed within 7, 90, and 30 days of the index date, respectively. We calculated odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using conditional logistic regression to assess the risk of outcomes associated with propacetamol. Results: We identified cases of anaphylaxis (n=61), thrombosis (n=95), and SJS (n=1) and matched them to controls (173, 268, and 4, respectively). In the nested case-control analysis, the ORs for anaphylaxis and SJS were inestimable given the small number of propacetamol users during the risk period; meanwhile, the OR for thrombosis was 1.60 (95% CI 0.71–3.62). In the CTC design, the effect estimate was only estimated for thrombosis (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.09–3.47). Conclusion In both nested case-control and CTC analyses, propacetamol was not associated with an increased risk of anaphylaxis, thrombosis, or SJS. The findings from this study, which used routinely collected clinical data, provide reassuring real-world evidence regarding the safety of propacetamol in a nationwide population to support regulatory decision-making.

Background/Aims: Although it is near concluded that renin-angiotensin system inhibitors do not have a harmful effect on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is no report about whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) offer any protective role. This study aimed to compare the association of ARBs and ACEIs with COVID-19-related mortality. Methods: All patients with COVID-19 in Korea between January 19 and April 16, 2020 were enrolled. The association of ARBs and ACEIs with mortality within 60 days were evaluated. A comparison of hazard ratio (HR) was performed between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of pneumonia patients hospitalized in 2019 in Korea. Results: Among 10,448 COVID-19 patients, ARBs and ACEIs were prescribed in 1,231 (11.7%) and 57 (0.6%) patients, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, and history of comorbidities, the ARB group showed neutral association (HR, 1.034; 95% CI, 0.765 to 1.399; p = 0.8270) and the ACEI groups showed no significant associations likely owing to the small population size (HR, 0.736; 95% CI, 0.314 to 1.726; p = 0.4810). When comparing HR between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized with pneumonia in 2019, the trend of ACEIs showed similar benefits, whereas the protective effect of ARBs observed in the retrospective cohort was absent in COVID-19 patients. Meta-analyses showed significant positive correlation with survival of ACEIs, whereas a neutral association between ARBs and mortality. Conclusions Although ARBs or ACEIs were not associated with fatal outcomes, potential beneficial effects of ARBs observed in pneumonia were attenuated in COVID-19.

Background/Aims: Although it is near concluded that renin-angiotensin system inhibitors do not have a harmful effect on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is no report about whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) offer any protective role. This study aimed to compare the association of ARBs and ACEIs with COVID-19-related mortality. Methods: All patients with COVID-19 in Korea between January 19 and April 16, 2020 were enrolled. The association of ARBs and ACEIs with mortality within 60 days were evaluated. A comparison of hazard ratio (HR) was performed between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of pneumonia patients hospitalized in 2019 in Korea. Results: Among 10,448 COVID-19 patients, ARBs and ACEIs were prescribed in 1,231 (11.7%) and 57 (0.6%) patients, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, and history of comorbidities, the ARB group showed neutral association (HR, 1.034; 95% CI, 0.765 to 1.399; p = 0.8270) and the ACEI groups showed no significant associations likely owing to the small population size (HR, 0.736; 95% CI, 0.314 to 1.726; p = 0.4810). When comparing HR between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized with pneumonia in 2019, the trend of ACEIs showed similar benefits, whereas the protective effect of ARBs observed in the retrospective cohort was absent in COVID-19 patients. Meta-analyses showed significant positive correlation with survival of ACEIs, whereas a neutral association between ARBs and mortality. Conclusions Although ARBs or ACEIs were not associated with fatal outcomes, potential beneficial effects of ARBs observed in pneumonia were attenuated in COVID-19.