1.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
Purpose:
The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH.
Methods:
A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups.
Results:
The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867).
Conclusion
The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.
2.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
Purpose:
The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH.
Methods:
A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups.
Results:
The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867).
Conclusion
The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.
3.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
Purpose:
The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH.
Methods:
A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups.
Results:
The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867).
Conclusion
The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.
4.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
Purpose:
The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH.
Methods:
A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups.
Results:
The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867).
Conclusion
The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.
5.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
Purpose:
The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH.
Methods:
A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups.
Results:
The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867).
Conclusion
The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.
6.Breast Cancer Statistics in Korea, 2021
Chihwan David CHA ; Chan Sub PARK ; Hee-Chul SHIN ; Jaihong HAN ; Jung Eun CHOI ; Joo Heung KIM ; Kyu-Won JUNG ; Sae Byul LEE ; Sang Eun NAM ; Tae In YOON ; Young-Joon KANG ; Zisun KIM ; So-Youn JUNG ; Hyun-Ah KIM ;
Journal of Breast Cancer 2024;27(6):351-361
The Korean Breast Cancer Society (KBCS) has collected nationwide registry data on clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment since 1996. This study aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics of breast cancer in Korea and assess changes in breast cancer statistics for 2021 using data from the KBCS registry and the Korean Central Cancer Registry. In 2021, 34,628 women were newly diagnosed with breast cancer. The median age of women diagnosed with breast cancer was 53.4 years, with the highest incidence occurring in the 40–49 age group. The most common molecular subtype was hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, accounting for 69.1% of cases, while HER2-positive subtypes comprised 19.3%. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the national breast cancer screening rate declined. However, the incidence of early-stage breast cancer (stages 0 and I) continued to increase, accounting for 65.6% of newly diagnosed cases in 2021. Our results showed that the overall survival rate for patients with breast cancer has improved, primarily due to a rise in early-stage diagnoses and advancements in treatment.
7.Breast Cancer Statistics in Korea, 2021
Chihwan David CHA ; Chan Sub PARK ; Hee-Chul SHIN ; Jaihong HAN ; Jung Eun CHOI ; Joo Heung KIM ; Kyu-Won JUNG ; Sae Byul LEE ; Sang Eun NAM ; Tae In YOON ; Young-Joon KANG ; Zisun KIM ; So-Youn JUNG ; Hyun-Ah KIM ;
Journal of Breast Cancer 2024;27(6):351-361
The Korean Breast Cancer Society (KBCS) has collected nationwide registry data on clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment since 1996. This study aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics of breast cancer in Korea and assess changes in breast cancer statistics for 2021 using data from the KBCS registry and the Korean Central Cancer Registry. In 2021, 34,628 women were newly diagnosed with breast cancer. The median age of women diagnosed with breast cancer was 53.4 years, with the highest incidence occurring in the 40–49 age group. The most common molecular subtype was hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, accounting for 69.1% of cases, while HER2-positive subtypes comprised 19.3%. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the national breast cancer screening rate declined. However, the incidence of early-stage breast cancer (stages 0 and I) continued to increase, accounting for 65.6% of newly diagnosed cases in 2021. Our results showed that the overall survival rate for patients with breast cancer has improved, primarily due to a rise in early-stage diagnoses and advancements in treatment.
8.Breast Cancer Statistics in Korea, 2021
Chihwan David CHA ; Chan Sub PARK ; Hee-Chul SHIN ; Jaihong HAN ; Jung Eun CHOI ; Joo Heung KIM ; Kyu-Won JUNG ; Sae Byul LEE ; Sang Eun NAM ; Tae In YOON ; Young-Joon KANG ; Zisun KIM ; So-Youn JUNG ; Hyun-Ah KIM ;
Journal of Breast Cancer 2024;27(6):351-361
The Korean Breast Cancer Society (KBCS) has collected nationwide registry data on clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment since 1996. This study aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics of breast cancer in Korea and assess changes in breast cancer statistics for 2021 using data from the KBCS registry and the Korean Central Cancer Registry. In 2021, 34,628 women were newly diagnosed with breast cancer. The median age of women diagnosed with breast cancer was 53.4 years, with the highest incidence occurring in the 40–49 age group. The most common molecular subtype was hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, accounting for 69.1% of cases, while HER2-positive subtypes comprised 19.3%. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the national breast cancer screening rate declined. However, the incidence of early-stage breast cancer (stages 0 and I) continued to increase, accounting for 65.6% of newly diagnosed cases in 2021. Our results showed that the overall survival rate for patients with breast cancer has improved, primarily due to a rise in early-stage diagnoses and advancements in treatment.
9.Clinical impact of a multimodal pain management protocol for loop ileostomy reversal
Jeong Sub KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Jung Hoon BAE ; Seung Rim HAN ; Do Sang LEE ; In Kyu LEE ; Yoon Suk LEE ; In Kyeong KIM
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(3):210-216
Purpose:
As introduced, multimodal pain management bundle for ileostomy reversal may be considered to reduce postoperative pain and hospital stay. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical efficacy of perioperative multimodal pain bundle for ileostomy.
Methods:
Medical records of patients who underwent ileostomy reversal after rectal cancer surgery from April 2017 to March 2020 were analyzed. Sixty-seven patients received multimodal pain bundle protocol with ileostomy reversal (group A) and 41 patients underwent closure of ileostomy with conventional pain management (group B).
Results:
Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, diabetes mellitus, and smoking history, were not significantly different between the groups. The pain score on postoperative day 1 was significant lower in group A (visual analog scale, 2.6 ± 1.3 vs. 3.2 ± 1.2; P = 0.013). Overall consumption of opioid in group A was significant less than group B (9.7 ± 9.5 vs. 21.2 ± 8.8, P < 0.001). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in group A (2.3 ± 1.5 days vs. 4.1 ± 1.5 days, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups in postoperative complication rate.
Conclusion
Multimodal pain protocol for ileostomy reversal could reduce postoperative pain, usage of opioid and hospital stay compared to conventional pain management.
10.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach
Tae-Han KIM ; In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Baek-Hui KIM ; Bang Wool EOM ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chang In CHOI ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chung sik GONG ; Dong Jin KIM ; Arthur Eung-Hyuck CHO ; Eun Jeong GONG ; Geum Jong SONG ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hye Seong AHN ; Hyun LIM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Kyoung Doo SONG ; Minkyu JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Sang-Yong SON ; Shin-Hoo PARK ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Tae-Yong KIM ; Woo Kyun BAE ; Woong Sub KOOM ; Yeseob JEE ; Yoo Min KIM ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Young Suk PARK ; Hye Sook HAN ; Su Youn NAM ; Seong-Ho KONG ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2023;23(1):3-106
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail