Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Background/Aims: Colorectal adenomas are precancerous lesions that may lead to colorectal cancer. Recent studies have shown that colorectal adenomas are associated with atherosclerosis. The cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) and ankle-brachial index (ABI) are noninvasive methods for evaluating atherosclerosis. This study examined the association between atherosclerosis and high-risk colorectal adenomas based on the CAVI and ABI. Methods: The data of patients aged ≥50 years who had a colonoscopy and CAVI and ABI measurements from August 2015 to December 2021 at the Kangwon National University Hospital were analyzed retrospectively. After the colonoscopy, subjects were divided into no, overall, and high-risk (size ≥1 cm, high-grade dysplasia or villous adenoma, three or more adenomas) adenoma groups based on the pathology findings. The data were subjected to univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results: Among the 1,164 subjects, adenomas and high-risk adenomas were found in 613 (52.6%) and 118 (10.1%) patients, respectively. The rate of positive ABI (<0.9) and positive CAVI (≥9.0) were significantly higher in the high-risk adenoma group (22.0% and 55.9%) than in the no adenoma (12.3% and 39.6%) and the overall adenoma group (15.7% and 44.0%) (p=0.008 and p=0.006, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed a positive CAVI and smoking status to be significantly associated with high-risk adenoma with an odds ratio of 1.595 (95% confidence interval 1.055–2.410, p=0.027) and 1.579 (1.072–2.324, p=0.021), respectively. Conclusions In this study, a significant correlation between positive CAVI and high-risk adenomas was observed. Therefore, CAVI may be a significant predictor for high-risk colorectal adenoma.

Background/Aims: The use of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is recommended for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Stent-related adverse events might differ according to the position of the stent through the ampulla of Vater (AOV). We retrospectively evaluated SEMS patency and adverse events according to the position of the SEMS. Methods: In total, 280 patients who underwent endoscopic SEMS placement due to malignant distal biliary obstruction were analyzed retrospectively. Suprapapillary and transpapillary SEMS insertions were performed on 51 patients and 229 patients, respectively. Results: Between the suprapapillary group (SPG) and transpapillary group (TPG), the stent patency period was not significantly different (median [95% confidence interval]: 107 days [82.3 to 131.7] vs 120 days [99.3 to 140.7], p=0.559). There was also no significant difference in the rate of adverse events. In subgroup analysis, the stent patency for an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV was found to be significantly shorter than that for an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV in the SPG (64 days [0 to 160.4] vs 127 days [82.0 to 171.9], p<0.001) and TPG (87 days [52.5 to 121.5] vs 130 [97.0 to 162.9], p<0.001). Patients with an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV in both groups had a higher percentage of duodenal invasion (SPG: 40.0% vs 4.9%, p=0.002; TPG: 28.6% vs 2.9%, p<0.001) than patients with an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV. Conclusions The SPG and TPG showed similar results in terms of stent patency and rate of adverse events. However, patients with an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV had a higher percentage of duodenal invasion with shorter stent patency than those with an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV, regardless of stent position.