Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) remains a cornerstone of curative treatment for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. However, dose escalation to improve tumor control is often constrained by the proximity of the rectum, which increases the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities. Biodegradable rectal spacers inserted between the prostate and rectum have emerged as an effective approach to reduce rectal radiation exposure. This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on indications, contraindications, procedural standards, and clinical management for biodegradable rectal spacer insertion during prostate cancer RT. Materials and Methods: This guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel through a systematic review of the literature, analysis of international guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Association of Urology, American Society for Radiation Oncology), and expert consensus among radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists with clinical experience in spacer insertion. The strength of each recommendation and the level of evidence were classified according to the modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Results: Spacer insertion is conditionally recommended (Grade C, Level I) for patients receiving definitive external-beam RT without rectal invasion. It reduces the high-dose rectal irradiation volume (V70–75) by >50%, decreases acute GI toxicity, and helps maintain bowel-related quality of life. However, the benefit for late severe toxicity (grade 2 or higher) remains debated in recent meta-analyses. Contraindications include rectal invasion, anatomical inaccessibility, infection, and material hypersensitivity. Procedures should be performed under local anesthesia in a sterile environment by trained physicians. Short-course antibiotics and simulator-based training, including completion of multiple supervised cases, are advised. Conclusion Biodegradable rectal spacer insertion is clinically validated and effective in reducing acute rectal toxicity. Although pivotal trials demonstrated a favorable procedural safety profile, real-world postmarket data include reports of rare but severe procedural complications. This guideline provides standardized recommendations tailored to Korean clinical practice while remaining consistent with international standards, emphasizing the importance of operator training and careful patient selection.

Background: There are limited long-term clinical outcome data comparing first-generation (1G) versus second-generation (2G) drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with single-vessel disease (SVD). We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of 1G- and 2G-DES in SVD patients who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over 10 years of clinical follow-up. Methods: A total of 2,312 consecutive patients with SVD who underwent PCI with 1G-DES (paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents, n = 811) or 2G-DES (zotarolimus [Endeavor, Endeavor Resolute]- or everolimus-eluting stents [Promus Element, Xience], n = 1,082) were enrolled.After propensity score matching, 2 matched groups (538 pairs) were generated. Study endpoints included individual and composite clinical outcomes through 10 years. Results: During the 10-year follow-up, the 2G-DES group had lower incidences of myocardial infarction (MI; hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22–0.92; P = 0.028) and target lesion revascularization (TLR; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32–0.91; P = 0.021) than the 1G-DES group. Rates of total death, cardiac death, non-target vessel revascularization, stroke, major adverse cardiac events, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were similar between groups. Conclusions In our single-center, all-comer registry, 2G-DES were associated with lower incidence rates of MI and TLR compared to 1G-DES in SVD patients over 10 years of followup, indicating a safer and more durable effect than 1G-DES.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of declining surgical residency program enrollment on patient care and outcomes in colorectal cancer surgeries. Methods: This retrospective observational study included 676 patients (410 males; median age: 69 years) who underwent colorectal cancer surgery at Pusan National University Hospital between January 2018 and June 2024. Patients were divided into Group A (before December 31, 2023; with residents) and Group B (after January 1, 2024; without residents). All surgeries were performed by a single attending surgeon. Results: Preoperative variables were comparable between groups. Group A had more emergency and open surgeries, and a higher proportion of advanced-stage cancers. Overall complication rates were similar, but Group B had a longer hospital stay (9.72 days vs. 11.95 days). Specific complications such as anastomotic leakage and surgical site infections differed significantly. The overall number of surgical procedures declined markedly in 2024 compared to 2018 (77.1% vs. 49.9%). Conclusion The absence of residents did not increase overall complication rates but was associated with longer hospital stays and shifts in clinical practice. Greater reliance on attending surgeons contributed to more defensive decision-making and conservative patient management. Addressing these issues requires systemic reforms, including multidisciplinary collaboration and legal protections to improve surgical care.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of declining surgical residency program enrollment on patient care and outcomes in colorectal cancer surgeries. Methods: This retrospective observational study included 676 patients (410 males; median age: 69 years) who underwent colorectal cancer surgery at Pusan National University Hospital between January 2018 and June 2024. Patients were divided into Group A (before December 31, 2023; with residents) and Group B (after January 1, 2024; without residents). All surgeries were performed by a single attending surgeon. Results: Preoperative variables were comparable between groups. Group A had more emergency and open surgeries, and a higher proportion of advanced-stage cancers. Overall complication rates were similar, but Group B had a longer hospital stay (9.72 days vs. 11.95 days). Specific complications such as anastomotic leakage and surgical site infections differed significantly. The overall number of surgical procedures declined markedly in 2024 compared to 2018 (77.1% vs. 49.9%). Conclusion The absence of residents did not increase overall complication rates but was associated with longer hospital stays and shifts in clinical practice. Greater reliance on attending surgeons contributed to more defensive decision-making and conservative patient management. Addressing these issues requires systemic reforms, including multidisciplinary collaboration and legal protections to improve surgical care.