Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

Purpose: Lumbar hernia repair presents unique surgical challenges due to its rarity and complex anatomical location.This study aimed to compare 3 minimally invasive surgical approaches for lumbar hernia repair: conventional laparoscopy, robotic surgery, and articulating laparoscopy. Methods: Three patients diagnosed with lumbar hernia underwent repair via the transabdominal preperitoneal approach using different minimally invasive techniques. Each patient was treated with one of 3 approaches: conventional laparoscopy, robotic surgery, or articulating laparoscopic instruments. Clinical outcomes, operative details, and costs were analyzed. Results: Each technique demonstrated distinct advantages: conventional laparoscopy offered familiarity, robotic surgery provided enhanced visualization and maneuverability, while articulating instruments presented a cost-effective alternative with improved range of motion. Conclusion Multiple minimally invasive approaches for lumbar hernia repair are feasible, each with unique benefits, allowing surgeons to choose based on resource availability and expertise.

Purpose: Preoperative colonoscopic (POC) localization is recommended for patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic colectomy for early colon cancer. Among the various localization method, POC tattooing localization has been widely used. Several dyes have been used for tattooing, but dye has disadvantages, including foreign body reactions. For this reason, we have used autologous blood tattooing for POC localization. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the autologous blood tattooing method. Methods: This study included patients who required POC localization of the colonic neoplasm among the patients who were scheduled for elective colon resection. The indication for localization was early colon cancer (clinically T1 or T2) or colonic neoplasms that could not be resected endoscopically. POC autologous blood tattooing was performed after saline injection, and 2 hemoclips were applied. Results: A total of 45 patients who underwent autologous blood tattooing and laparoscopic colectomy were included in this study. All POC localization sites were visible in the laparoscopic view. POC localization sites showed almost perfect agreement with intraoperative surgical findings. There were no complications like bowel perforation, peritonitis, hemoperitoneum, and mesenteric hematoma. Conclusion Autologous blood is a safe and effective agent for localizing materials that can replace previous dyes. However, a large prospective case-control study is required for the routine application of this procedure in early colon cancer or colonic neoplasms.

Purpose: We investigated the current practices and perceptions of colorectal surgeons in South Korea regarding intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (IIA) in minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (RHC). Methods: Members of the Korean Society of Coloproctology (KSCP) participated in an online survey encompassing demographic information, surgical experiences, methods for IIA, and advantages, barriers, and perceptions of IIA. We performed a statistical analysis of survey results. Results: Among the 1,074 KSCP members contacted, 178 responded to the survey. Most respondents were males aged 40–49 years with >10 years of experience who were affiliated with a tertiary healthcare facility. One hundred fifty-six respondents had performed <100 colorectal cancer surgeries annually. Fifty-nine respondents reported experiences of the IIA technique in minimally invasive RHC. Most respondents favored the isoperistaltic side-to-side (S-S) anastomosis and stapled S-S anastomosis, hand-sewn closure for the common channel, and the periumbilical area for primary specimen extraction. Respondents with IIA experience emphasized the reduction in postoperative complications as the primary reason for performing IIA, whereas respondents without IIA experience cited the lack of benefits as the main deterrent. Respondents commonly cited concerns regarding anastomotic leakage and intraabdominal contamination as the primary reasons for not performing IIA. Respondents with IIA experience demonstrated a more positive response towards attempting or transitioning to IIA than those without. Respondents with IIA experience prioritized self-sufficiency, whereas respondents without IIA experience prioritized proctorship and discussions of the initial cases. Conclusion Measures to standardize the IIA technique and appropriate training programs must be implemented to enhance its use in minimally invasive RHC.

Chronic constipation is one of the most common digestive diseases encountered in clinical practice. Constipation manifests as a variety of symptoms, such as infrequent bowel movements, hard stools, feeling of incomplete evacuation, straining at defecation, a sense of anorectal blockage during defecation, and use of digital maneuvers to assist defecation. During the diagnosis of chronic constipation, the Bristol Stool Form Scale, colonoscopy, and a digital rectal examination are useful for objective symptom evaluation and differential diagnosis of secondary constipation. Physiological tests for functional constipation have complementary roles and are recommended for patients who have failed to respond to treatment with available laxatives and those who are strongly suspected of having a defecatory disorder. As new evidence on the diagnosis and management of functional constipation emerged, the need to revise the previous guideline was suggested. Therefore, these evidence-based guidelines have proposed recommendations developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment options available for functional constipation. The benefits and cautions of new pharmacological agents (such as lubiprostone and linaclotide) and conventional laxatives have been described through a meta-analysis. The guidelines consist of 34 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and epidemiology of functional constipation, 9 regarding diagnoses, and 22 regarding managements. Clinicians (including primary physicians, general health professionals, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients can refer to these guidelines to make informed decisions regarding the management of functional constipation.

Purpose: Bowel dysfunction commonly occurs in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with a multimodal approach of chemoradiation therapy (CRT) combined with sphincter-preserving rectal resection. This study investigated the decline in anorectal function using sequential anorectal manometric measurements obtained before and after the multimodal treatment as well as at a 1-year follow-up. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single center. The study population consisted of patients with locally advanced mid- to low rectal cancer who received the preoperative CRT followed by sphincter-preserving surgery from 2012 to 2016. The anorectal manometric value measured after each treatment modality was compared to demonstrate the degree of decline in anorectal function. A generalized linear model of repeated measures was performed using the manometric values measured pre- and post-CRT, and at 12 months postoperatively. Results: Overall, 100 patients with 3 consecutive manometric data were included in the final analysis. In the overall cohort study, the mean resting and maximal squeezing pressures showed insignificant decrement post-neoadjuvant CRT. At a 1-year postoperative follow-up, the maximal squeezing pressure significantly decreased. The maximal rectal sensory threshold demonstrated significant reduction consecutively after each following treatment (P<0.001). Conclusion The short-term effect of neoadjuvant CRT on the anal sphincters was relatively trivial. The following sphincter-saving surgery resulted in a profound disruption of the anorectal function. Patients with rectal cancer should be consulted on the consequence of multimodal treatment.