Coding malignant tumors in multiple sites within the digestive system involves some coding rules.When more than two malignant tumors present various pathologic types,they should be included in the code of C97,which indicates multiple primary malignancies,and should be categorized into a specific code under the category of C97 upon corresponding treatment pur-poses.For those malignant tumors in the digestive system presenting with the same pathological results but unidentified primary sites,which are diagnosed as more than two types of tumors and recorded on the first page of a medical record,they are coded ac-cording to their specific locations.The coding principles are as followed:① If a malignant tumor spans two or more adjacent sites with an unidentified primary origin,it should be classified as a cross-site malignant tumor and coded based on the tumor's ana-tomical location.② If more than two malignant tumors are located in the separate parts of the same location,they should be co-ded with".9"as a subheading of the three-digit category specific to the right location.③If more than two malignant tumors are not adjacent to each other in the digestive system,they should be classified to the code of C26.9.In the process of coding,cod-ers should review case data thoroughly,enhance the accumulation of clinical knowledge,and strengthen communications with doc-tors,thereby enhancing coding precision.

Robotic surgery is applied in gastrointestinal surgery for their flexible and safe operation, especially in the narrow space of the pelvic cavity for radical surgery of rectal cancer, which has obvious advantages. Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is a hot surgical technique that has developed rapidly in gastrointestinal surgery in recent years. The integration of robotic surgery and NOSES surgery has pushed minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer to a new level. Robotic NOSES surgery for rectal cancer can be divided into two types based on the different extraction methods: transrectal and transvaginal specimen extraction. The selection and flexibility of surgical procedures are the keys to the standardized, healthy, and orderly development of robotic NOSES for rectal cancer. Based on domestic and foreign literature and guidelines and combined with the team′s practical experience, the authors elaborate on the selection strategy of robotic NOSES for rectal cancer, in order to provide reference for more scientific and safe implementation of robotic NOSES for rectal cancer.

Standardized reporting is a crucial factor affecting the use of patient guidelines （PGs）， particularly in the reporting and presentation of recommendations. This paper introduced the current status of PG reporting， including the research on PG content and presentation formats， and provided comprehensive recommendations for PG reporting from aspects such as overall framework， recommendations， presentation format， and readability. First， the presentation of PG recommendations should include clearly defined clinical questions， recommendations and their rationale， and guidance on how patients should implement the interventions； for specific content in the PG， such as level of evidence， level of recommendation， it is recommended to explain in text the reasons for giving different levels of recommendation， i.e.， to present the logic behind giving the level of recommendation to the patient； additional information needed in the recommendation framework should be supplemented by tracing references or authoritative textbooks and literature that support the recommendations. Subsequently， the PG text should be written based on the Reporting Checklist for Public Versions of Guidelines （RIGHT-PVG） reporting framework. Finally， to enhance readability and comprehension， it is recommended to refer to the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool （PEMAT） for translating PG content. To enhance the readability of PGs， it is suggested to present the PG content in a persona-lized and layered manner.

Since the concept of patient versions of guidelines （PVGs） was introduced into China， several PVGs have been published in China， but we found that there is a big difference between the concept of PVG at home and abroad， and the reason for this difference has not been reasonably explained， which has led to ambiguity and even misapplication of the PVG concept by guideline developers. By analyzing the background and purpose of PVGs， and the understanding of the PVG concept by domestic scholars， we proposed the term patient guidelines （PGs）. This refers to guidelines developed under the principles of evidence-based medicine， centered on health issues that concern patients， and based on the best available evidence， intended for patient use. Except for the general attribute of providing information or education， which is typical of common health education materials， PGs also provide recommendations and assist in decision-making， so PGs include both the patient versions of guidelines （PVG） as defined by the Guidelines International Network （GIN） and "patient-directed guidelines"， i.e. clinical practice guidelines resulting from the adaptation or reformulation of recommendations through clinical practice guidelines.

At present， the process and methodology of patient guidelines （PGs） development varies greatly and lacks systematic and standardised guidance. In addition to the interviews with PG developers， we have sorted out the relevant methodology for the adaptation and development of existing clinical practice guideline recommendations and facilitated expert deliberations to achieve a consensus， so as to finally put forward a proposal for guidance on the process and methodology for the development of PGs. The development of PGs can be divided into the preparation stage， the construction stage， and the completion stage in general， but the specific steps vary according to the different modes of development of PGs. The development process of Model 1 is basically the same as the patient version of the guideline development process provided by the International Guidelines Network， i.e.， team formation， screening of recommendations， guideline drafing， user testing and feedback， approval and dissemination. The developer should also first determine the need for and scope of translating the clinical practice guideline into a patient version during the preparation phase. Model 2 adds user experience and feedback to the conventional clinical practice guideline development process （forming a team， determining the scope of the PG， searching， evaluating and integrating evidence， forming recommendations， writing the guideline， and expert review）. Based on the different models， we sort out the process and methods of PG development and introduce the specific methods of PG development， including how to identify the clinical problem and how to form recommendations based on the existing clinical practice guidelines， with a view to providing reference for guideline developers and related researchers.

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for right colon cancer has been conducted with progressive refinements. To facilitate the standardized implementation of this surgical technique, the adoption of rigorous quality control measures is paramount. The present article outlines the key aspects of quality control for robotic natural orifice specimen extraction right hemicolectomy surgery, encompassing the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases, as well as the training and credentialing requirements for the operating surgeons, with the aim of providing a reference framework to facilitate the safe and reliable implementation and dissemination of this minimally invasive approach for right colon cancer.

Objective:To compare the surgical outcomes of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and robotic-assisted radical resection for rectal cancer.Methods:A retrospective analysis using propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted on 547 patients who had undergone radical resection of rectal cancer at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from June 2018 to March 2024. The study cohort comprised 157 patients in the robotic NOSES group and 390 in the robotic-assisted group. PSM was used in a 1:1 manner to match relevant general clinical preoperative data of the study patients (age, sex, body mass index, preoperative comorbidities, abnormal preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (>6.5 μg/L) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 levels (>27 kU/L), preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor diameter, tumor distance from the anal margin, and TNM stage), with a clamp value of 0.05. After performing PSM to match the general clinical data of the two groups of patients, 77 patients in each of the robotic NOSES and robotic-assisted groups were included in the analysis. We found no statistically significant difference in preoperative general clinical data between the robot NOSES and robot-assisted groups ( P>0.05). We compared the surgical outcomes, postoperative recovery, postoperative pathological data, and incidence of complications between the robotic NOSES and robot-assisted groups. Results:Compared with the robot-assisted groups. the robot NOSES group had a significantly shorter time to first postoperative passage of flatus (48 [38, 50] hours vs. 56 [50, 60] hours, Z=-7.513, P<0.001), time to taking a liquid diet (60 [54,63] hours vs. 66 [62, 72] hours, Z=-6.303, P<0.001), lower pain scores (3 [3, 4] vs. 4 [4, 5], Z=-5.237, P<0.001), and lower incision infection rates (0 vs. 5 [6.5%], χ 2=5.237, P=0.028) within 24 hours after surgery ( P<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative anastomotic complications, or incidence of other complications between the two groups (all P>0.05). Conclusion:Robotic NOSES surgery is a safe and feasible procedure for resecting rectal cancer and postoperative recovery is faster after robotic NOSES than after standard robot-assisted surgery.

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for right colon cancer has been conducted with progressive refinements. To facilitate the standardized implementation of this surgical technique, the adoption of rigorous quality control measures is paramount. The present article outlines the key aspects of quality control for robotic natural orifice specimen extraction right hemicolectomy surgery, encompassing the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases, as well as the training and credentialing requirements for the operating surgeons, with the aim of providing a reference framework to facilitate the safe and reliable implementation and dissemination of this minimally invasive approach for right colon cancer.

Objective:To compare the surgical outcomes of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and robotic-assisted radical resection for rectal cancer.Methods:A retrospective analysis using propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted on 547 patients who had undergone radical resection of rectal cancer at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from June 2018 to March 2024. The study cohort comprised 157 patients in the robotic NOSES group and 390 in the robotic-assisted group. PSM was used in a 1:1 manner to match relevant general clinical preoperative data of the study patients (age, sex, body mass index, preoperative comorbidities, abnormal preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (>6.5 μg/L) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 levels (>27 kU/L), preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor diameter, tumor distance from the anal margin, and TNM stage), with a clamp value of 0.05. After performing PSM to match the general clinical data of the two groups of patients, 77 patients in each of the robotic NOSES and robotic-assisted groups were included in the analysis. We found no statistically significant difference in preoperative general clinical data between the robot NOSES and robot-assisted groups ( P>0.05). We compared the surgical outcomes, postoperative recovery, postoperative pathological data, and incidence of complications between the robotic NOSES and robot-assisted groups. Results:Compared with the robot-assisted groups. the robot NOSES group had a significantly shorter time to first postoperative passage of flatus (48 [38, 50] hours vs. 56 [50, 60] hours, Z=-7.513, P<0.001), time to taking a liquid diet (60 [54,63] hours vs. 66 [62, 72] hours, Z=-6.303, P<0.001), lower pain scores (3 [3, 4] vs. 4 [4, 5], Z=-5.237, P<0.001), and lower incision infection rates (0 vs. 5 [6.5%], χ 2=5.237, P=0.028) within 24 hours after surgery ( P<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative anastomotic complications, or incidence of other complications between the two groups (all P>0.05). Conclusion:Robotic NOSES surgery is a safe and feasible procedure for resecting rectal cancer and postoperative recovery is faster after robotic NOSES than after standard robot-assisted surgery.

Bariatric surgery has been proven to be the most effective intervention for the treatment of obesity and obesity-related complications. In recent decades, medical experts as well as scholars in China have been actively promoting and pushing the development of bariatric surgery, and conducting a series of clinical and basic research. As a result of their unremitting efforts, research in the field of bariatric surgery in China has developed extremely rapidly. The authors examined the overview of literature research in the field of bariatric surgery in China through bibliometric analysis, and analyzed the current status, hot spots, trends, and frontiers of research in this field, with the aim of providing references for future research and development.