Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Background: Our study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiologic results of all-arthroscopic treatment of terrible triad injuries followed-up for a minimum of 5 years and investigate how arthroscopic partial excision for radial head fractures affects the results at the final follow-up. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with terrible triad injuries who underwent all-arthroscopic treatment between January 2011 and June 2018. In group I, we performed conservative or arthroscopic fixation of stable radial head fractures, while in group II, arthroscopic partial excision of unstable radial head fractures involving <30%–50% of the articular surface area was performed. Clinical outcomes were measured by visual analog scale score and assessment of instability, range of motion (ROM), and Mayo Elbow Performance Score. Radiological outcomes were evaluated using x-rays, and the integrity of the repaired lateral collateral ligament complex was confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging. Results: Thirty-two patients with an average age of 49.5±16.2 years met the inclusion criteria and were followed-up for a mean of 82.7±22.2 months. Twenty patients were assigned to group I and 12 patients to group II. Clinical outcomes showed no significant differences between the two groups at the final follow-up (P>0.05). On radiological evaluation, more heterotopic ossifications were found in the radial head excision group (group II, 66.7% vs. group I, 35%; P=0.02); however, there was no significant difference in ROM between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusions In all-arthroscopic treatment of terrible triad injuries, arthroscopic partial excision of the radial head did not seem to have a significant impact on elbow joint stability.Level of evidence: III.

Background: Our study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiologic results of all-arthroscopic treatment of terrible triad injuries followed-up for a minimum of 5 years and investigate how arthroscopic partial excision for radial head fractures affects the results at the final follow-up. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with terrible triad injuries who underwent all-arthroscopic treatment between January 2011 and June 2018. In group I, we performed conservative or arthroscopic fixation of stable radial head fractures, while in group II, arthroscopic partial excision of unstable radial head fractures involving <30%–50% of the articular surface area was performed. Clinical outcomes were measured by visual analog scale score and assessment of instability, range of motion (ROM), and Mayo Elbow Performance Score. Radiological outcomes were evaluated using x-rays, and the integrity of the repaired lateral collateral ligament complex was confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging. Results: Thirty-two patients with an average age of 49.5±16.2 years met the inclusion criteria and were followed-up for a mean of 82.7±22.2 months. Twenty patients were assigned to group I and 12 patients to group II. Clinical outcomes showed no significant differences between the two groups at the final follow-up (P>0.05). On radiological evaluation, more heterotopic ossifications were found in the radial head excision group (group II, 66.7% vs. group I, 35%; P=0.02); however, there was no significant difference in ROM between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusions In all-arthroscopic treatment of terrible triad injuries, arthroscopic partial excision of the radial head did not seem to have a significant impact on elbow joint stability.Level of evidence: III.