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.

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.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the analgesic and preventive effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the incisional pain model and spinal nerve ligation (SNL) model in rats and identify the possible mechanisms of action. Methods: Male Sprague-Dawley rats were used, divided into different treatment groups. The single application group received LLLT before or after skin incision or SNL. The consecutive application group received LLLT for six consecutive days post-incision, three days pre-incision, or three consecutive days pre-SNL. The control group underwent skin incision or SNL without LLLT. The von Frey test was used to quantify the pain associated with mechanical allodynia. Pro-inflammatory cytokine level and alterations in nerve growth factor (NGF) expression were measured by using ELISA and immunohistochemistry, respectively in the skin, muscle of the paw, and spinal cord dorsal horn (SCDH). Results: In the incisional pain model, LLLT showed significant analgesic and preventive effect. LLLT ameliorated SNL-induced mechanical allodynia but LLLT had no preventive effect. LLLT decreased interleukin-1β (IL-1β) expression levels in the skin, muscle, and SCDH and reduced the optical density of skin and spinal cord NGF in the incisional pain model. Conclusions LLLT alleviated incisional pain and neuropathic pain caused by SNL in rats, and reduced the levels of IL-1β and NGF in the peripheral tissue and SCDH in the incisional pain model. LLLT might be effective in patients with post-operative pain and peripheral neuropathic pain.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the analgesic and preventive effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the incisional pain model and spinal nerve ligation (SNL) model in rats and identify the possible mechanisms of action. Methods: Male Sprague-Dawley rats were used, divided into different treatment groups. The single application group received LLLT before or after skin incision or SNL. The consecutive application group received LLLT for six consecutive days post-incision, three days pre-incision, or three consecutive days pre-SNL. The control group underwent skin incision or SNL without LLLT. The von Frey test was used to quantify the pain associated with mechanical allodynia. Pro-inflammatory cytokine level and alterations in nerve growth factor (NGF) expression were measured by using ELISA and immunohistochemistry, respectively in the skin, muscle of the paw, and spinal cord dorsal horn (SCDH). Results: In the incisional pain model, LLLT showed significant analgesic and preventive effect. LLLT ameliorated SNL-induced mechanical allodynia but LLLT had no preventive effect. LLLT decreased interleukin-1β (IL-1β) expression levels in the skin, muscle, and SCDH and reduced the optical density of skin and spinal cord NGF in the incisional pain model. Conclusions LLLT alleviated incisional pain and neuropathic pain caused by SNL in rats, and reduced the levels of IL-1β and NGF in the peripheral tissue and SCDH in the incisional pain model. LLLT might be effective in patients with post-operative pain and peripheral neuropathic pain.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the analgesic and preventive effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the incisional pain model and spinal nerve ligation (SNL) model in rats and identify the possible mechanisms of action. Methods: Male Sprague-Dawley rats were used, divided into different treatment groups. The single application group received LLLT before or after skin incision or SNL. The consecutive application group received LLLT for six consecutive days post-incision, three days pre-incision, or three consecutive days pre-SNL. The control group underwent skin incision or SNL without LLLT. The von Frey test was used to quantify the pain associated with mechanical allodynia. Pro-inflammatory cytokine level and alterations in nerve growth factor (NGF) expression were measured by using ELISA and immunohistochemistry, respectively in the skin, muscle of the paw, and spinal cord dorsal horn (SCDH). Results: In the incisional pain model, LLLT showed significant analgesic and preventive effect. LLLT ameliorated SNL-induced mechanical allodynia but LLLT had no preventive effect. LLLT decreased interleukin-1β (IL-1β) expression levels in the skin, muscle, and SCDH and reduced the optical density of skin and spinal cord NGF in the incisional pain model. Conclusions LLLT alleviated incisional pain and neuropathic pain caused by SNL in rats, and reduced the levels of IL-1β and NGF in the peripheral tissue and SCDH in the incisional pain model. LLLT might be effective in patients with post-operative pain and peripheral neuropathic pain.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the analgesic and preventive effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the incisional pain model and spinal nerve ligation (SNL) model in rats and identify the possible mechanisms of action. Methods: Male Sprague-Dawley rats were used, divided into different treatment groups. The single application group received LLLT before or after skin incision or SNL. The consecutive application group received LLLT for six consecutive days post-incision, three days pre-incision, or three consecutive days pre-SNL. The control group underwent skin incision or SNL without LLLT. The von Frey test was used to quantify the pain associated with mechanical allodynia. Pro-inflammatory cytokine level and alterations in nerve growth factor (NGF) expression were measured by using ELISA and immunohistochemistry, respectively in the skin, muscle of the paw, and spinal cord dorsal horn (SCDH). Results: In the incisional pain model, LLLT showed significant analgesic and preventive effect. LLLT ameliorated SNL-induced mechanical allodynia but LLLT had no preventive effect. LLLT decreased interleukin-1β (IL-1β) expression levels in the skin, muscle, and SCDH and reduced the optical density of skin and spinal cord NGF in the incisional pain model. Conclusions LLLT alleviated incisional pain and neuropathic pain caused by SNL in rats, and reduced the levels of IL-1β and NGF in the peripheral tissue and SCDH in the incisional pain model. LLLT might be effective in patients with post-operative pain and peripheral neuropathic pain.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the analgesic and preventive effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the incisional pain model and spinal nerve ligation (SNL) model in rats and identify the possible mechanisms of action. Methods: Male Sprague-Dawley rats were used, divided into different treatment groups. The single application group received LLLT before or after skin incision or SNL. The consecutive application group received LLLT for six consecutive days post-incision, three days pre-incision, or three consecutive days pre-SNL. The control group underwent skin incision or SNL without LLLT. The von Frey test was used to quantify the pain associated with mechanical allodynia. Pro-inflammatory cytokine level and alterations in nerve growth factor (NGF) expression were measured by using ELISA and immunohistochemistry, respectively in the skin, muscle of the paw, and spinal cord dorsal horn (SCDH). Results: In the incisional pain model, LLLT showed significant analgesic and preventive effect. LLLT ameliorated SNL-induced mechanical allodynia but LLLT had no preventive effect. LLLT decreased interleukin-1β (IL-1β) expression levels in the skin, muscle, and SCDH and reduced the optical density of skin and spinal cord NGF in the incisional pain model. Conclusions LLLT alleviated incisional pain and neuropathic pain caused by SNL in rats, and reduced the levels of IL-1β and NGF in the peripheral tissue and SCDH in the incisional pain model. LLLT might be effective in patients with post-operative pain and peripheral neuropathic pain.

Background and Objectives: Identifying patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) is important when making decisions for antiplatelet therapy strategy. This study evaluated the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) according to HBR in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with drug eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In this post-hoc analysis of the TICO trial, HBR was defined by 2 approaches: meeting Academic Research Consortium for HBR (ARC-HBR) criteria or Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent DAPT (PRECISEDAPT) score ≥25. The primary outcome was a 3–12 months net adverse clinical event (composite of major bleeding and adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events). Results: Of the 2,980 patients without adverse events during the first 3 months after DES implantation, 453 (15.2%) were HBR by ARC-HBR criteria and 504 (16.9%) were HBR by PRECISE-DAPT score. The primary outcome rate was higher in HBR versus non-HBR patients (by ARC-HBR criteria: hazard ratio [HR], 2.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76– 4.69; p<0.001; by PRECISE-DAPT score: HR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.92–4.98; p<0.001). Ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT was associated with lower primary outcome rate than ticagrelor-based 12-month DAPT regardless of HBR by ARC-HBR criteria, with similar magnitudes of therapy effect for HBR and non-HBR patients (p-interaction=0.400). Results were consistent by PRECISE-DAPT score (p-interaction=0.178). Conclusions In ACS patients treated with DESs, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT was associated with lower rate of adverse clinical outcomes regardless of HBR, with similar magnitudes of therapy effect between HBR and non-HBR.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02494895