Purpose: Surgical resection is the primary curative treatment for gastrointestinal (GI) cancer; however, it is associated with high postoperative complication rates and impaired recovery. Frailty, malnutrition, and sarcopenia increase morbidity and mortality, underscoring the need for perioperative rehabilitation programs. Standardized rehabilitation protocols during the perioperative period are currently lacking in Korea. We aimed to develop an evidence-based rehabilitation protocol for GI cancer patients to enhance postoperative outcomes and facilitate clinical implementation. Methods: A multidisciplinary task force team comprising experts in surgery, clinical nutrition, and rehabilitation medicine conducted a systematic literature search and comprehensive review from 2012 to 2022 to develop a standardized pre- and re-habilitation protocol for GI cancer surgery. The protocol underwent external validation and subsequent refinements before being finalized through expert consensus. Results: The protocol development process was organized into four consecutive phases: keyword selection, literature review and case report form development, initial protocol drafting, and external validation leading to the final version of the protocol. The final version of the rehabilitation protocol is presented in the main text and included as Supplements. Conclusion This protocol provides a standardized clinical guideline based on the latest evidence-based pre- and re-habilitation strategies and is designed for seamless integration into routine clinical practice. By facilitating proactive rehabilitation interventions, it aims to improve outcomes in GI cancer patients who are at high risk of postoperative complications, functional decline, and malnutrition.

Purpose: The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups. Results: The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867). Conclusion The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

Purpose: Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis; however, the implementation of neoadjuvant treatment enables borderline resectable cases to undergo curative resection and improves the overall survival rate. Attempts have been made to expand the eligibility criteria for neoadjuvant treatment, even in resectable cases. Some studies have suggested a correlation between vein abutment and poor prognosis or that the abutment angle may affect prognosis. This study investigated the anatomical factors affecting the vessel abutment angle and its prognostic value in pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent surgery between 2012 and 2017 were included in this study. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment were excluded. Data from only the intent-to-treat pancreaticoduodenectomy group were included in the analysis. Clinicopathological characteristics; preoperative factors such as CA 19-9, preoperative biliary drainage, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, portal vein/superior mesenteric vein contact angle measured via CT scan; and intraoperative factors were collected for analysis. Results: A total of 365 patients were included in this study, and the abutment group included 92 patients (25.2%). The abutment and no-contact groups did not show any significant differences in terms of the overall survival or diseasefree survival rate. Among the abutment groups, patients with less than 90° and 90°–180° did not show any significant differences. In the multivariate analysis, the only preoperative factor that had a prognostic effect was CA 19-9, a biological factor. Conclusion When there is no vessel invasion in the abutment group, upfront surgery should be considered because the angle does not affect the overall prognosis.

Purpose: Postoperative adhesions following thyroid surgery can lead to multiple complications that significantly impact quality of life. The use of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) adhesion barrier device has been proposed as a potential solution to reduce the risk of such adhesions. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and anti-adhesive effect of an ADM in patients undergoing thyroid surgery. Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients undergoing thyroid surgery were randomly assigned to receive either ADM (n = 42) or no ADM (n = 39) during surgery. The primary outcome was the Swallowing Impairment Score (SIS-6), measured 6 weeks after surgery and compared between groups. Secondary outcomes included intergroup comparisons of the SIS-6, the Voice Handicap Index (VHI)-10, and the Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale (GETS) at baseline, and 2, 6, and 18 weeks after surgery. Results: At week 6, the mean SIS-6 scores were 4.0 ± 4.1 and 3.3 ± 4.2 in the ADM and control groups, respectively, which was not significantly different. Both groups showed similar postoperative improvements in SIS-6, VHI-10, and GETS scores over time, without significant differences between groups at any time point, indicating that the ADM did not reduce the incidence of postoperative adhesions or alter the course of recovery compared to the control group. Conclusion Although application of the ADM is safe for use in patients undergoing thyroid surgery, it did not produce a clinically significant advantage in preventing postoperative adhesions. Future research should focus on identifying specific patient populations or surgical scenarios where the use of the ADM may be beneficial.

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in intestinal failure (IF) patients after different modes of intestinal rehabilitation. Methods: HRQoL was assessed using the generic 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36, ver. 2) and visual analogue scale (VAS) in 6 different areas: diet, sleep, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, and other symptoms. Results: Twenty-two patients completed the questionnaires, of which 7 had received intestinal transplant (ITx), 9 were continuing home total parenteral nutrition (HPN), and 6 had tapered off total parenteral nutrition (TPN). SF-36 physical component summary scores were highest in the ITx group (median, 65.6; interquartile range [IQR], 31.6–80.3) compared to the HPN (median, 48.4; IQR, 44.7–66.3) or tapered group (median, 54.2; IQR, 45.2–61.6). Mental component summary scores were lowest in the ITx group (median, 48.8; IQR, 37.1–63.6), compared to the TPN (median, 60.2; IQR, 41.6–78.5) or tapered group (median, 51.0; IQR, 48.8–56.0). Differences were not significant in all items of the SF-36. VAS scores showed that patients in the ITx group showed the best results in diet (0.9), gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (1.4), and musculoskeletal pain (2.4). There was a significant difference in sleep (P = 0.036), with the ITx (1.43) and HPN groups (1.33) showing better outcomes compared with the tapered group (4.67). Patients in the tapered group showed the least favorable results in all performance areas, except GI symptoms. Conclusion SF-36 did not show a significant difference between the ITx, HPN, and tapered groups, but VAS showed a significant difference in sleep between groups. Further studies, including serial data, will allow a better understanding of the effects of different modes of intestinal rehabilitation.

Purpose: The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is challenging in fragile patients, including those with cancer, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and old age. We aimed to compare the safety of DOACs in terms of bleeding complications in these patients. Methods: Using hospital data from 2013 to 2019, we compared the risk of bleeding and major bleeding, including intracranial bleeding, any bleeding requiring transfusion, and all-cause bleeding, in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) who were naïve to DOAC (n = 12,369) and warfarin (n = 4,123). Hazard ratios (HRs) for the clinical outcomes were analyzed using Cox regression analysis, with warfarin as a reference. Results: The study included 4,078 eligible patients, predominantly female (54.1%), with a mean age of 62.5 years. DOACs were the primary treatment in 74.1% of the patients. DOAC treatment was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared to warfarin (HR, 0.799; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.707–0.904). Although rates of recurrent VTE or major bleeding did not significantly differ between the groups, DOAC-treated patients had lower bleeding risk (HR, 0.562; 95% CI, 0.393–0.805; P = 0.002). The individual DOAC drugs did not differ significantly in terms of composite outcomes, recurrence, or bleeding events. Conclusion DOAC showed comparable outcomes with warfarin in the fragile patient population.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Purpose: Treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vary according to known guidelines among liver resection (LR), liver transplantation (LT), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of initial treatment for patients with resectable HCC within Milan criteria (MC) via nationwide data. Methods: Patients with resectable HCC (Child-Pugh class A; platelet count, ≥100,000/μL) within MC from the Korean Liver Cancer Association databank were analyzed, retrospectively. Outcomes according to initial treatment and subgroups according to tumor size and number were analyzed. Overall survival (OS) rates after initial treatment were compared. Results: A total of 3,241 patients who underwent LR (n = 1,371), LT (n = 12), RFA (n = 679), or TACE (n = 1,179) were included. The 5-year OS rates differed significantly between the groups (P < 0.05), except for LT (LR, 84.9%; LT, 82.5%;RFA, 76.2%; and TACE, 59.9%). For patients with a single tumor of any size, the 5-year OS rates of the LR group were significantly higher than RFA and TACE groups. For patients with multiple tumors, the 5-year OS rates were 78.2%, 100%, 74.3%, and 53.0% for the LR, LT, RFA, and TACE groups, respectively, but without significant difference between LR and RFA (P = 0.86). Conclusion For resectable HCC within MC, the LR had the highest OS rate for a single tumor of any size. LR and RFA showed no significant differences in OS rate for multiple tumors. LR has a much more optimistic outlook for HCC within MC.