1.Reduced port robotic cholecystectomy using the Revo-i single-site plus ONE port approach: a case series with video
Su Hyung PARK ; Chang Moo KANG
Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery 2026;29(1):54-58
This study evaluated the initial feasibility and safety of reduced-port robotic cholecystectomy using the Revo-i robotic system (meerecompany Inc.) in nine patients diagnosed with symptomatic gallstones and chronic cholecystitis. All surgeries were successfully completed without complications or conversion to conventional methods. Postoperative outcomes were excellent, with minimal pain immediately after surgery, significantly reduced by the next day.Most patients were discharged on postoperative day one. Cosmetic outcomes were outstanding, with barely noticeable scars at the umbilical and flank port sites. These findings demonstrate that Revo-i robotic cholecystectomy is technically feasible, safe, and patientfriendly, suggesting potential for broader application in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgeries.
2.Survival Rates of Patients with Gastric Cancer According to Age and Sex: A Large-Scale Study Using Data from 14,739 Patients
Yonghoon CHOI ; Nayoung KIM ; Ji Hyun KIM ; Hyeong Ho JO ; Hyeon Jeong OH ; Hye Seung LEE ; Yu Kyung JUN ; Hyuk YOON ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Young Soo PARK ; Dong Ho LEE ; So Hyun KANG ; Young Suk PARK ; Sang-Hoon AHN ; Yun-Suhk SUH ; Do Joong PARK ; Hyung Ho KIM ; Ji-Won KIM ; Jin Won KIM ; Keun-Wook LEE ; Won CHANG ; Yoon Jin LEE ; Kyoung Ho LEE ; Young Hoon KIM
Cancer Research and Treatment 2026;58(1):252-263
Purpose:
The male predominance in the incidence of gastric cancer (GC) is established; however, sex differences in the prognosis of GC remain controversial. As such, this study analyzed the prognosis of patients with GC based on age and sex.
Materials and Methods:
Data from 14,739 patients diagnosed with GC at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital between 2003 and 2023 were analyzed. Baseline characteristics, histological types of GC, overall and GC-specific survival rates (age and stage stratification), and associated risk factors were analyzed.
Results:
Females were significantly younger (p < 0.001) and exhibited more gastric body cancers (p < 0.001) and tumors with diffuse-type or poorly differentiated histology (p < 0.001) than males. Females exhibited an advantage over males in terms of overall survival (p=0.004), but not in GC-specific survival. However, age stratification revealed significant sex differences, that females < 50 years of age exhibited survival disadvantages (p < 0.001); however, this trend was reversed with age, and females > 60 years exhibited survival advantages (p < 0.001) for both overall and GC-specific survival. This may be explained by the lower ratio of diffuse-type GC as females age. Furthermore, in the analysis according to stage, females with stage IV disease exhibited significant survival disadvantages, with significantly younger age and a higher proportion of diffuse-type GC which exhibits aggressive features, resulting in poorer survival than in males.
Conclusion
Age and stage stratification revealed significant differences in survival between the sexes, which can be helpful for public health strategies.
3.Clinical Guideline for the Use of Biodegradable Rectal Spacers During Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer
Hyun Ho HAN ; Jong Kyou KWON ; Do Kyung KIM ; Jin Hyung JEON ; Chan Woo WEE ; Jae Ho CHO ; Ji Hee JUNG ; A Young YOO ; Jae Young JOUNG ; Gee Hyun SONG ; Seung Ju LEE ; Won PARK ; Chan Kyo KIM ; Young Seok KIM ; Yeon Joo KIM ; Ah Ram CHANG ; Jae Sik KIM ; Sung Hwan BAE ; Byoung Kyu HAN ; Kang Su CHO
Journal of Urologic Oncology 2026;24(1):3-12
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.
4.Current status of hepatitis C treatment and its barriers in Jeonbuk, Republic of Korea
Ji Hyeon KANG ; You Jeong MOON ; Ung-Gyu KIM ; Jung-Im PARK ; Chang Hun LEE ; In Hee KIM ; Ju-Hyung LEE ; Jin GWACK
Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives 2026;17(2):188-192
Objectives:
In alignment with the World Health Organization’s goal of eliminating hepatitis C, this study assessed the current treatment status and reasons for non-treatment among patients with hepatitis C in Jeonbuk State, Republic of Korea, to inform strategies for improving care engagement.
Methods:
Among 311 individuals diagnosed with hepatitis C and reported through the NationalNotifiable Infectious Disease Surveillance system between January 2023 and June 2024, 208 patients were surveyed after excluding those who had died or could not be contacted.Statistical analyses included the chi-square test, the Cochran-Armitage test for trend, and logistic regression.
Results:
Overall, 116 participants (55.8%) reported having received antiviral therapy. Among the 92 untreated individuals, the most common reason for non-treatment was the absence of symptoms (n = 23; 25.0%), followed by the burden of drug costs (n = 21; 22.8%).
Conclusion
These findings highlight suboptimal treatment uptake and key barriers that may hinder progress toward hepatitis C elimination. Expanding screening and strengthening linkage-to-care strategies, while addressing financial barriers, will be essential to achievingnational elimination targets.
5.Sex Differences in Procedural Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Bifurcation PCI
Hyun Jin AHN ; Francesco BRUNO ; Jeehoon KANG ; Doyeon HWANG ; Han-Mo YANG ; Jung-Kyu HAN ; Leonardo De LUCA ; Ovidio de FILIPPO ; Alessio MATTESINI ; Kyung Woo PARK ; Alessandra TRUFFA ; Wojciech WANHA ; Young Bin SONG ; Sebastiano GILI ; Woo Jung CHUN ; Gerard HELFT ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Bernardo CORTESE ; Seung Hwan HAN ; Javier ESCANED ; Alaide CHIEFFO ; Ki Hong CHOI ; Guglielmo GALLONE ; Joon-Hyung DOH ; Gaetano De FERRARI ; Soon-Jun HONG ; Giorgio QUADRI ; Chang-Wook NAM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Fabrizio D’ASCENZO ; Bon-Kwon KOO
Korean Circulation Journal 2025;55(1):5-16
Background and Objectives:
The risk profiles, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes for women undergoing bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well defined compared to those in men.
Methods:
COronary BIfurcation Stenting III (COBIS III) is a multicenter, real-world registry of 2,648 patients with bifurcation lesions treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents.We compared the angiographic and procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes based on sex. The primary outcome was 5-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization.
Results:
Women (n=635, 24%) were older, had hypertension and diabetes more often, and had smaller main vessel and side branch reference diameters than men. The pre- and post-PCI angiographic percentage diameter stenoses of the main vessel and side branch were comparable between women and men. There were no differences in procedural characteristics between the sexes. Women and men had a similar risk of TLF (6.3% vs. 7.1%, p=0.63) as well as its individual components and sex was not an independent predictor of TLF. This finding was consistent in the left main and 2 stenting subgroups.
Conclusions
In patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, sex was not an independent predictor of adverse outcome.
6.Cost-effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Intravascular Ultrasound to Guide Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results From the FLAVOUR Study
Doyeon HWANG ; Hea-Lim KIM ; Jane KO ; HyunJin CHOI ; Hanna JEONG ; Sun-ae JANG ; Xinyang HU ; Jeehoon KANG ; Jinlong ZHANG ; Jun JIANG ; Joo-Yong HAHN ; Chang-Wook NAM ; Joon-Hyung DOH ; Bong-Ki LEE ; Weon KIM ; Jinyu HUANG ; Fan JIANG ; Hao ZHOU ; Peng CHEN ; Lijiang TANG ; Wenbing JIANG ; Xiaomin CHEN ; Wenming HE ; Sung Gyun AHN ; Ung KIM ; You-Jeong KI ; Eun-Seok SHIN ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Seung-Jea TAHK ; JianAn WANG ; Tae-Jin LEE ; Bon-Kwon KOO ;
Korean Circulation Journal 2025;55(1):34-46
Background and Objectives:
The Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular UltrasoundGuided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial demonstrated non-inferiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided PCI compared to IVUS-guided PCI in Korea.
Methods:
A 2-part cost-effectiveness model, composed of a short-term decision tree model and a long-term Markov model, was developed for patients who underwent PCI to treat intermediate stenosis (40% to 70% stenosis by visual estimation on coronary angiography).The lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the healthcare system perspective. Transition probabilities were mainly referred from the FLAVOUR trial, and healthcare costs were mainly obtained through analysis of Korean National Health Insurance claims data. Health utilities were mainly obtained from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire responses of FLAVOUR trial participants mapped to EQ-5D.
Results:
From the Korean healthcare system perspective, the base-case analysis showed that FFR-guided PCI was 2,451 U.S. dollar lower in lifetime healthcare costs and 0.178 higher in QALYs compared to IVUS-guided PCI. FFR-guided PCI remained more likely to be cost-effective over a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
Conclusions
Based on the results from the FLAVOUR trial, FFR-guided PCI is projected to decrease lifetime healthcare costs and increase QALYs compared with IVUS-guided PCI in intermediate coronary lesion, and it is a dominant strategy in Korea.
7.Is There a Potential Oncologic Role for Local Therapy on Hepatic Metastasis in Patients Who Undergo Curative Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Cancer?
Jun Hyung KIM ; Seung Soo HONG ; Sung Hyun KIM ; Ho Kyung HWANG ; Chang Moo KANG
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(6):329-336
Purpose:
In pancreatic cancer, therapeutic investigations targeting liver metastases could improve survival. However, the use of local treatment for oligometastasis in pancreatic cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the oncological role of local therapy in patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy and subsequently developed liver metastases.
Materials and Methods:
Data concerning patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer at Severance Hospital in Seoul, South Korea between 2006 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. We included patients with one or two liver metastases, as confirmed on imaging. We excluded those with metastases in other organs. The patients were divided into two groups: the NT group, receiving conventional therapy without local treatment; and the LT group, receiving local treatments for liver metastases alongside standard therapy.
Results:
Of the 43 included patients (NT group, n=33; LT group, n=10), no significant differences were observed in overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.846; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.397–1.804; p=0.665] or post-recurrence survival (HR 0.932; 95% CI 0.437–1.985, p=0.855) between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, early recurrence within 6 months (p<0.001) and the use of 5-fluorouracil (FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy (CTx) (p=0.011), as well as 5-FU-based CTx after liver metastasis (p=0.008) when compared with gemcitabine-based regimens, were significant predictors of poor OS.
Conclusion
The oncologic role of local treatment for hepatic metastasis remains controversial in patients with hepatic metastasis after radical pancreatectomy. In the era of potent chemotherapeutic regimens, further research is needed to clarify the efficacy of such regimens.
8.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.
9.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
10.Is There a Potential Oncologic Role for Local Therapy on Hepatic Metastasis in Patients Who Undergo Curative Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Cancer?
Jun Hyung KIM ; Seung Soo HONG ; Sung Hyun KIM ; Ho Kyung HWANG ; Chang Moo KANG
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(6):329-336
Purpose:
In pancreatic cancer, therapeutic investigations targeting liver metastases could improve survival. However, the use of local treatment for oligometastasis in pancreatic cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the oncological role of local therapy in patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy and subsequently developed liver metastases.
Materials and Methods:
Data concerning patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer at Severance Hospital in Seoul, South Korea between 2006 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. We included patients with one or two liver metastases, as confirmed on imaging. We excluded those with metastases in other organs. The patients were divided into two groups: the NT group, receiving conventional therapy without local treatment; and the LT group, receiving local treatments for liver metastases alongside standard therapy.
Results:
Of the 43 included patients (NT group, n=33; LT group, n=10), no significant differences were observed in overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.846; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.397–1.804; p=0.665] or post-recurrence survival (HR 0.932; 95% CI 0.437–1.985, p=0.855) between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, early recurrence within 6 months (p<0.001) and the use of 5-fluorouracil (FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy (CTx) (p=0.011), as well as 5-FU-based CTx after liver metastasis (p=0.008) when compared with gemcitabine-based regimens, were significant predictors of poor OS.
Conclusion
The oncologic role of local treatment for hepatic metastasis remains controversial in patients with hepatic metastasis after radical pancreatectomy. In the era of potent chemotherapeutic regimens, further research is needed to clarify the efficacy of such regimens.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail