Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of 2 endoscopic spine surgeries on the biomechanical properties of normal and osteoporotic spines. Methods: Based on computed tomography images of a healthy adult volunteer, 6 finite element models were created. After validating the normal intact model, a concentrated force of 400 N and a moment of 7.5 Nm were exerted on the upper surface of L3 to simulate 6 physiological activities of the spine. Five types of indices were used to assess the biomechanical properties of the 6 models, range of motion (ROM), maximum displacement value, intervertebral disc stress, maximum stress value, and articular protrusion stress, and by combining them with finite element stress cloud. Results: In normal and osteoporotic spines, there was no meaningful change in ROM or disc stress in the 2 surgical models for the 6 motion states. Model N1 (osteoporotic percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy model) showed a decrease in maximum displacement value of 20.28% in right lateral bending. Model M2 (unilateral biportal endoscopic model) increased maximum displacement values of 16.88% and 17.82% during left and right lateral bending, respectively. The maximum stress value of L4–5 increased by 11.72% for model M2 during left rotation. In addition, using the same surgical approach, ROM, maximum displacement values, disc stress, and maximum stress values were more significant in the osteoporotic model than in the normal model. Conclusion In both normal and osteoporotic spines, both surgical approaches were less disruptive to the physiologic structure of the spine. Furthermore, using the same endoscopic spine surgery, normal spine biomechanical properties are superior to osteoporotic spines.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of 2 endoscopic spine surgeries on the biomechanical properties of normal and osteoporotic spines. Methods: Based on computed tomography images of a healthy adult volunteer, 6 finite element models were created. After validating the normal intact model, a concentrated force of 400 N and a moment of 7.5 Nm were exerted on the upper surface of L3 to simulate 6 physiological activities of the spine. Five types of indices were used to assess the biomechanical properties of the 6 models, range of motion (ROM), maximum displacement value, intervertebral disc stress, maximum stress value, and articular protrusion stress, and by combining them with finite element stress cloud. Results: In normal and osteoporotic spines, there was no meaningful change in ROM or disc stress in the 2 surgical models for the 6 motion states. Model N1 (osteoporotic percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy model) showed a decrease in maximum displacement value of 20.28% in right lateral bending. Model M2 (unilateral biportal endoscopic model) increased maximum displacement values of 16.88% and 17.82% during left and right lateral bending, respectively. The maximum stress value of L4–5 increased by 11.72% for model M2 during left rotation. In addition, using the same surgical approach, ROM, maximum displacement values, disc stress, and maximum stress values were more significant in the osteoporotic model than in the normal model. Conclusion In both normal and osteoporotic spines, both surgical approaches were less disruptive to the physiologic structure of the spine. Furthermore, using the same endoscopic spine surgery, normal spine biomechanical properties are superior to osteoporotic spines.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of 2 endoscopic spine surgeries on the biomechanical properties of normal and osteoporotic spines. Methods: Based on computed tomography images of a healthy adult volunteer, 6 finite element models were created. After validating the normal intact model, a concentrated force of 400 N and a moment of 7.5 Nm were exerted on the upper surface of L3 to simulate 6 physiological activities of the spine. Five types of indices were used to assess the biomechanical properties of the 6 models, range of motion (ROM), maximum displacement value, intervertebral disc stress, maximum stress value, and articular protrusion stress, and by combining them with finite element stress cloud. Results: In normal and osteoporotic spines, there was no meaningful change in ROM or disc stress in the 2 surgical models for the 6 motion states. Model N1 (osteoporotic percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy model) showed a decrease in maximum displacement value of 20.28% in right lateral bending. Model M2 (unilateral biportal endoscopic model) increased maximum displacement values of 16.88% and 17.82% during left and right lateral bending, respectively. The maximum stress value of L4–5 increased by 11.72% for model M2 during left rotation. In addition, using the same surgical approach, ROM, maximum displacement values, disc stress, and maximum stress values were more significant in the osteoporotic model than in the normal model. Conclusion In both normal and osteoporotic spines, both surgical approaches were less disruptive to the physiologic structure of the spine. Furthermore, using the same endoscopic spine surgery, normal spine biomechanical properties are superior to osteoporotic spines.