Purpose: This study aimed to compare the wound cosmesis of a single-incision approach on scar assessment after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Methods: This study included 32 patients undergoing single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and 61 patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer at 3 tertiary referral hospitals between September 2011 and December 2019. We modified and applied the Korean version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to assess cosmetic outcomes. To assess the interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient values for the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), the surgeons evaluated 5 images of postoperative scars. Results: No significant differences were observed in the time before the return of normal bowel function, time to sips of water and soft diet initiation, length of in-hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate. The SPLS group had a shorter total incision length than the MPLS group. The POSAS favored the SPLS approach, revealing significant differences in the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS), OSAS, and overall scores. The SPLS approach was an independent factor influencing the POSAS, PSAS, and OSAS scores. Eleven colorectal surgeons had a significantly substantial intraclass coefficient. Conclusion The cosmetic outcomes of SPLS as assessed by the patients and surgeons were superior to those of MPLS in colon cancer. Reducing the number of ports is an independent factor affecting scar assessment by patients and observers.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the wound cosmesis of a single-incision approach on scar assessment after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Methods: This study included 32 patients undergoing single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and 61 patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer at 3 tertiary referral hospitals between September 2011 and December 2019. We modified and applied the Korean version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to assess cosmetic outcomes. To assess the interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient values for the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), the surgeons evaluated 5 images of postoperative scars. Results: No significant differences were observed in the time before the return of normal bowel function, time to sips of water and soft diet initiation, length of in-hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate. The SPLS group had a shorter total incision length than the MPLS group. The POSAS favored the SPLS approach, revealing significant differences in the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS), OSAS, and overall scores. The SPLS approach was an independent factor influencing the POSAS, PSAS, and OSAS scores. Eleven colorectal surgeons had a significantly substantial intraclass coefficient. Conclusion The cosmetic outcomes of SPLS as assessed by the patients and surgeons were superior to those of MPLS in colon cancer. Reducing the number of ports is an independent factor affecting scar assessment by patients and observers.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the wound cosmesis of a single-incision approach on scar assessment after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Methods: This study included 32 patients undergoing single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and 61 patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer at 3 tertiary referral hospitals between September 2011 and December 2019. We modified and applied the Korean version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to assess cosmetic outcomes. To assess the interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient values for the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), the surgeons evaluated 5 images of postoperative scars. Results: No significant differences were observed in the time before the return of normal bowel function, time to sips of water and soft diet initiation, length of in-hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate. The SPLS group had a shorter total incision length than the MPLS group. The POSAS favored the SPLS approach, revealing significant differences in the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS), OSAS, and overall scores. The SPLS approach was an independent factor influencing the POSAS, PSAS, and OSAS scores. Eleven colorectal surgeons had a significantly substantial intraclass coefficient. Conclusion The cosmetic outcomes of SPLS as assessed by the patients and surgeons were superior to those of MPLS in colon cancer. Reducing the number of ports is an independent factor affecting scar assessment by patients and observers.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the wound cosmesis of a single-incision approach on scar assessment after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Methods: This study included 32 patients undergoing single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and 61 patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer at 3 tertiary referral hospitals between September 2011 and December 2019. We modified and applied the Korean version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to assess cosmetic outcomes. To assess the interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient values for the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), the surgeons evaluated 5 images of postoperative scars. Results: No significant differences were observed in the time before the return of normal bowel function, time to sips of water and soft diet initiation, length of in-hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate. The SPLS group had a shorter total incision length than the MPLS group. The POSAS favored the SPLS approach, revealing significant differences in the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS), OSAS, and overall scores. The SPLS approach was an independent factor influencing the POSAS, PSAS, and OSAS scores. Eleven colorectal surgeons had a significantly substantial intraclass coefficient. Conclusion The cosmetic outcomes of SPLS as assessed by the patients and surgeons were superior to those of MPLS in colon cancer. Reducing the number of ports is an independent factor affecting scar assessment by patients and observers.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the wound cosmesis of a single-incision approach on scar assessment after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Methods: This study included 32 patients undergoing single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and 61 patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer at 3 tertiary referral hospitals between September 2011 and December 2019. We modified and applied the Korean version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to assess cosmetic outcomes. To assess the interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient values for the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), the surgeons evaluated 5 images of postoperative scars. Results: No significant differences were observed in the time before the return of normal bowel function, time to sips of water and soft diet initiation, length of in-hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate. The SPLS group had a shorter total incision length than the MPLS group. The POSAS favored the SPLS approach, revealing significant differences in the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS), OSAS, and overall scores. The SPLS approach was an independent factor influencing the POSAS, PSAS, and OSAS scores. Eleven colorectal surgeons had a significantly substantial intraclass coefficient. Conclusion The cosmetic outcomes of SPLS as assessed by the patients and surgeons were superior to those of MPLS in colon cancer. Reducing the number of ports is an independent factor affecting scar assessment by patients and observers.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Purpose: The safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) for acute cholecystitis (AC) has not yet been confirmed. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for AC between April 2010 and December 2020.Propensity scores were used to match patients who underwent SILC with those who underwent conventional multiport LC (CMLC) in the entire cohort and in the two subgroups. Results: A total of 1,876 patients underwent LC for AC, and 427 (22.8%) underwent SILC. In the propensity score-matched analysis of the entire cohort (404 patients in each group), the length of hospital stay (2.9 days vs. 3.5 days, p = 0.029) was shorter in the SILC group than in the CMLC group. No significant differences were observed in other surgical outcomes. In grade I AC (336 patients in each group), the SILC group showed poorer surgical outcomes than the CMLC group, regarding operation time (57.6 minutes vs. 52.4 minutes, p = 0.001) and estimated blood loss (22.9 mL vs. 13.1 mL, p = 0.006). In grade II/III AC (58 patients in each group), there were no significant differences in surgical outcomes between the two groups. Postoperative pain outcomes were also not significantly different in the two groups, regardless of severity. Conclusion This study demonstrated that SILC had similar surgical and pain outcomes to CMLC in patients with AC; however, subgroup analysis showed that SILC was associated with poor surgical outcomes than CMLC in grade I AC. Therefore, SILC should be carefully performed in patients with AC by experienced hepatobiliary surgeons.

Purpose: The safety of online contouring and planning for adaptive radiotherapy is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric difference of the organ-at-risk (OAR) according to the extent of contouring in stereotactic magnetic resonance image-guided adaptive RT (SMART) for pancreatic cancer. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the treatment plan data used for SMART in patients with pancreatic cancer. For the online contouring and planning, OARs within 2 cm from the planning target volume (PTV) in the craniocaudal direction were re-controlled daily at the attending physician's discretion. The entire OARs were re-contoured retrospectively for data analysis. We termed the two contouring methods the Rough OAR and the Full OAR, respectively. The proportion of dose constraint violation and other dosimetric parameters was analyzed. Results: Nineteen patients with 94 fractions of SMART were included in the analysis. The dose constraint was violated in 10.6% and 43.6% of the fractions in Rough OAR and Full OAR methods, respectively (p = 0.075). Patients with a large tumor, a short distance from gross tumor volume (GTV) to OAR, and a tumor in the body or tail were associated with more occult dose constraint violations—large tumor (p = 0.027), short distance from GTV to OAR (p = 0.061), tumor in body or tail (p = 0.054). No dose constraint violation occurred outside 2 cm from the PTV. Conclusion More occult dose constraint violations can be found by the Full OAR method in patients with pancreatic cancer with some clinical factors in the online re-planning for SMART. Re-contouring all the OARs would be helpful to detect occult dose constraint violations in SMART planning. Since the dosimetric profile of SMART cannot be represented by a single fraction, patient selection for the Full OAR method should be weighted between the clinical usefulness and the time and workforce required.