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.
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.
7.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.
8.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.
9.The Korean Academy of Asthma Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines for sublingual immunotherapy
Gwanghui RYU ; Hye Mi JEE ; Hwa Young LEE ; Sung-Yoon KANG ; Kyunghoon KIM ; Ju Hee KIM ; Kyung Hee PARK ; So-Young PARK ; Myong Soon SUNG ; Youngsoo LEE ; Eun-Ae YANG ; Jin-Young MIN ; Eun Kyo HA ; Sang Min LEE ; Yong Won LEE ; Eun Hee CHUNG ; Sun Hee CHOI ; Young-Il KOH ; Seon Tae KIM ; Dong-Ho NAHM ; Jung Won PARK ; Jung Yeon SHIM ; Young Min AN ; Man Yong HAN ; Jeong-Hee CHOI ; Yoo Seob SHIN ; Doo Hee HAN ;
Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease 2024;12(3):125-133
Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been used for over a century and has been demonstrated to be effective in treating patients with various allergic diseases. AIT allergens can be administered through various routes, including subcutaneous, sublingual, intralymphatic, oral, or epicutaneous routes. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has recently gained clinical interest, and it is considered an alternative treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma. This review provides an overview of the current evidence-based studies that address the use of SLIT for treating AR, including (1) mechanisms of action, (2) appropriate patient selection for SLIT, (3) the current available SLIT products in Korea, and (4) updated information on its efficacy and safety. Finally, this guideline aims to provide the clinician with practical considerations for SLIT.
10.The Korean Academy of Asthma Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines for allergen immunotherapy
Hwa Young LEE ; Sung-Yoon KANG ; Kyunghoon KIM ; Ju Hee KIM ; Gwanghui RYU ; Jin-Young MIN ; Kyung Hee PARK ; So-Young PARK ; Myongsoon SUNG ; Youngsoo LEE ; Eun-Ae YANG ; Hye Mi JEE ; Eun Kyo HA ; Yoo Seob SHIN ; Sang Min LEE ; Eun Hee CHUNG ; Sun Hee CHOI ; Young-Il KOH ; Seon Tae KIM ; Dong-Ho NAHM ; Jung Won PARK ; Jung Yeon SHIM ; Young Min AN ; Doo Hee HAN ; Man Yong HAN ; Yong Won LEE ; Jeong-Hee CHOI ;
Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease 2024;12(3):102-124
Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a causative treatment of allergic diseases in which allergen extracts are regularly administered in a gradually escalated doses, leading to immune tolerance and consequent alleviation of allergic diseases. The need for uniform practice guidelines in AIT is continuously growing as the number of potential candidates for AIT increases and new therapeutic approaches are tried. This updated version of the Korean Academy of Asthma Allergy and Clinical Immunology recommendations for AIT, published in 2010, proposes an expert opinion by specialists in allergy, pediatrics, and otorhinolaryngology. This guideline deals with the basic knowledge of AIT, including mechanisms, clinical efficacy, allergen standardization, important allergens in Korea, and special consideration in pediatrics. The article also covers the methodological aspects of AIT, including patient selection, allergen selection, schedule and doses, follow-up care, efficacy measurements, and management of adverse reactions. Although this guideline suggests the optimal dosing schedule, an individualized approach and modifications are recommended considering the situation for each patient and clinic.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail