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: 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: 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: Surgical resection, the primary treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC), is often linked with postoperative complications that adversely affect the overall survival rates (OS). The pan-immune-inflammation value (PIV), a novel biomarker, is promising in evaluating cancer prognoses. We aimed to explore the impact of preoperative immune inflammation status on postoperative and long-term oncological outcomes in patients with CRC. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 203 patients with CRC who underwent surgery (January 2016–June 2020) was conducted. The preoperative PIV was calculated as [(neutrophil count + platelet count + monocyte count) / lymphocyte counts]. The PIV optimal cutoff value was determined based on the OS using the Contal and O’Quigley methods. Results: A PIV value ≥155.90 was defined as high. Patients were categorized into low-PIV (n = 85) and high-PIV (n = 118) groups. Perioperative clinical outcomes (total operation time, time to gas out, sips of water, soft diet, and hospital stay) were not significantly different between the groups. The high-PIV group exhibited more postoperative complications (P = 0.024), and larger tumor size compared with the low-PIV group. Multivariate analysis identified that American Society of Anesthesiologists grade III (P = 0.046) and high-PIV (P = 0.049) were significantly associated with postoperative complications. The low-PIV group demonstrated higher OS (P = 0.001) and disease-free survival rates (DFS) (P = 0.021) compared with the high-PIV group. Advanced N stage (P = 0.005) and high-PIV levels (P = 0.047) were the identified independent prognostic factors for OS, whereas advanced N stage (P = 0.045) was an independent prognostic factor for DFS. Conclusion Elevated preoperative PIV was associated with an increased incidence of postoperative complications and served as an independent prognostic factor for OS.

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of skin adhesives and to compare postoperative and cosmetic outcomes after wound closure in single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) between skin adhesives and steri-strips. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study. We included 22 and 47 patients in whom skin adhesive and steri-strips were used respectively, for skin closure after subcuticular suturing in SPLA between August 2014 and 2020. The patient scar assessment questionnaire (PSAQ) was completed postoperatively to assess postoperative cosmetic outcomes. Results: On the postoperative day, patients in whom skin adhesive was used had significantly lower numeric rating scores than in whom steri-strips were used (2.8 ± 0.8 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8, p < 0.001). The frequency of analgesic administration within 24 hours and between 24 and 48 hours after surgery was significantly lower in the skin adhesive group compared to the wound closure strip group (1.4 ± 0.8 vs. 2.7 ± 1.2, p = 0.013 and 0.2 ± 0.4 vs. 0.7 ± 0.9, p = 0.002, respectively). In the PSAQ, “satisfaction with appearance” and “satisfaction with symptoms” subitem scores were significantly lower in patients in whom skin adhesive was used (11.3 ± 3.0 vs. 15.1 ± 4.5, p = 0.006 and 6.5 ± 1.8 vs. 9.5 ± 3.3, p = 0.003), whereas, “appearance” and “consciousness” subitems revealed no statistically significant differences between the groups. Conclusion Liquid skin adhesive closures seem to be safe and feasible and cause less postoperative pain, resulting in greater patient satisfaction with postoperative scars than wound closure strip closure after subcuticular suturing in SPLA.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes and patient-surveyed scar assessments of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) with the outcomes of multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (MPLA). Methods: Between August 2014 and November 2017, the prospective randomized study comprised 98 patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis and indicated for surgery. Fifty-one patients had MPLA and 47 patients received SPLA. The primary endpoint was the total score of Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ) administered to patients 6 weeks after surgery. Results: SPLA involved a shorter median operative time than MPLA (47.5 minutes vs. 60.0 minutes, p = 0.02). There were no apparent differences in the time before diet tolerance, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication. SPLA patients had shorter total incision length (2.0 cm vs. 2.5 cm, p < 0.01) and required fewer analgesics on the day of surgery than MPLA patients (p = 0.011). The PSAQ favored the SPLA approach, revealing significant differences in total score (48 vs. 55, p = 0.026), appearance (15 vs. 18, p = 0.002), and consciousness (8 vs. 10, p = 0.005), while satisfaction with appearance and symptoms scale did not (p = 0.162 and p = 0.690, respectively). Conclusion The postoperative scar evaluated by the patient was better with SPLA than with MPLA, and patient satisfaction with the scar was comparable between the two techniques.

Background: The importance of molecular pathology tests has increased during the last decade, and there is a great need for efficient training of molecular pathology for pathology trainees and as continued medical education. Methods: The Molecular Pathology Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists appointed a task force composed of experienced molecular pathologists to develop a refined educational curriculum of molecular pathology. A 3-day online educational session was held based on the newly established structure of learning objectives; the audience were asked to score their understanding of 22 selected learning objectives before and after the session to assess the effect of structured education. Results: The structured objectives and goals of molecular pathology was established and posted as a web-based interface which can serve as a knowledge bank of molecular pathology. A total of 201 pathologists participated in the educational session. For all 22 learning objectives, the scores of self-reported understanding increased after educational session by 9.9 points on average (range, 6.6 to 17.0). The most effectively improved items were objectives from next-generation sequencing (NGS) section: ‘NGS library preparation and quality control’ (score increased from 51.8 to 68.8), ‘NGS interpretation of variants and reference database’ (score increased from 54.1 to 68.0), and ‘whole genome, whole exome, and targeted gene sequencing’ (score increased from 58.2 to 71.2). Qualitative responses regarding the adequacy of refined educational curriculum were collected, where favorable comments dominated. Conclusions Approach toward the education of molecular pathology was refined, which would greatly benefit the future trainees.

Subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), characterized by elevated serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels and normal free thyroxine levels, usually presents without symptoms, and is often discovered incidentally during routine blood test. The Task Force of the Korean Thyroid Association Committee of Clinical Practice Guidelines has established a guideline to evaluate and manage SCH; the guideline emphasizes the implementation of diagnostic criteria based on the TSH reference range for Koreans and focuses on the proven health benefits of levothyroxine (LT4) treatment. Based on the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-2015), serum TSH level of 6.8 mIU/L is considered the reference value for SCH. SCH can be categorized as mild (TSH 6.8-10.0 mIU/L) or severe (TSH ＞10.0 mIU/L), and patients are classified as adults (age ＜70 years) or elderly patients (age ≥70years) depending on the health effects of LT4 treatment. An initial increase in serum TSH levels should be reassessed with a subsequent measurement, along with the thyroid peroxidase antibody test, preferably 2-3 months after the initial evaluation. Usually, LT4 treatment is not recommended for mild SCH in adults; however, treatment is necessary for severe SCH in patients with underlying coronary artery disease or heart failure and can be considered for coexisting dyslipidemia. LT4 treatment is not recommended for mild or even severe SCH in elderly patients, in general. Patients with SCH who receive LT4 treatment, the LT4 dosage should be personalized, and serum TSH levels should be monitored to ensure optimal LT4 dosage (dosage that is neither excessive nor insufficient). Patients with SCH who do not receive LT4 treatment require periodic follow-up at appropriate testing intervals determined by disease severity. The guideline also provides several educational points applicable in clinical settings.