Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed. Results: Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240). Conclusions This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed. Results: Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240). Conclusions This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed. Results: Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240). Conclusions This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

Background and Objectives: The serum galactomannan test (GM test) and the (1,3)-β-D-glucan test (G test) are utilized in diagnosing invasive fungal sinusitis. However, their effectiveness in detecting paranasal sinus fungus balls (FBs) has not been established. This study aimed to explore their diagnostic value in patients with FBs. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 105 patients (42 with FBs and 63 with chronic rhinosinusitis [CRS]) who underwent serum GM and G tests between June 2020 and May 2021. Olfactory test results and demographics were also analyzed. Results: There were 42 FB patients (10 men, 32 women) and 63 CRS patients (27 men, 36 women). The positivity rates for serum GM (7.1% in the FB group vs. 3.2% in the CRS group, p=0.640) and G test (9.5% in the FB group vs. 11.1% in the CRS group, p=0.482) did not differ significantly between groups. The sensitivities of the GM and G tests were 7.1% and 9.5%, respectively, and their specificities were 96.8% and 88.9%, respectively. The positive predictive values were 60.0% for the GM test and 36.3% for the G test, and the negative predictive values were 61.0% for the GM test and 59.6% for the G test. Conclusion Serum GM and G tests demonstrated low sensitivity and high specificity, indicating limited effectiveness in differentiating between patients with FBs and those with CRS. Histological examination remains the gold standard for the definitive diagnosis of FBs.

Purpose: We prospectively compared the diagnostic accuracy of kidney dynamic computed tomography (KDCT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) for the assessment of small renal mass (SRM) (≤4 cm). Materials and Methods: Seventy-six patients with SRM (mean age, 58.4±13.1 years) who underwent renal biopsy (n=11) or nephrectomy (partial or radical) (n=65) were enrolled. All patients underwent KDCT, MRI, and CEUS before renal biopsy or nephrectomy. Results: The mean maximal tumor size was 21.0±9.8 mm. The mean R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score was 7.0±1.7. Fifty-six patients had renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (clear cell, 42; papillary, 7; chromophobe, 5; succinate dehydrogenase deficient, 1; unspecified RCC, 1). Twenty patients had a benign tumor (angiomyolipoma, 11; oncocytoma, 3; others, 6). Clinicopathologic variables were comparable in RCC and benign groups. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of KDCT were 89.3%, 10.0%, 73.5%, and 25.0%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of MRI were 89.3%, 10.0%, 73.5%, and 25.0%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CEUS were 85.7%, 50.0%, 82.8%, and 55.6%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of KDCT, MRI, and CEUS were 68.4%, 68.4%, and 76.3%, respectively. In a subgroup analysis based on clinical tumor size of 10 mm and 20 mm, CEUS also showed the highest diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions CEUS had the highest specificity, PPV, and NPV and may help improve the assessment of SRM.