1.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
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.
2.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
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.
3.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
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.
4.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
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.
5.A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Tae Gyu KIM ; Chul Seung LEE ; Dong Geun LEE ; Choon Sik CHUNG ; Seung Han KIM ; Sang Hwa YU ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Gwan Cheol LEE ; Dong Woo KANG ; Jeong Sub KIM ; Gyu Young JEONG
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(2):145-153
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.
8.Study Design and Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of a Triple Combination of Ezetimibe, Fenofibrate, and Moderate-Intensity Statin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Modifiable Cardiovascular Risk Factors (ENSEMBLE)
Nam Hoon KIM ; Juneyoung LEE ; Suk CHON ; Jae Myung YU ; In-Kyung JEONG ; Soo LIM ; Won Jun KIM ; Keeho SONG ; Ho Chan CHO ; Hea Min YU ; Kyoung-Ah KIM ; Sang Soo KIM ; Soon Hee LEE ; Chong Hwa KIM ; Soo Heon KWAK ; Yong‐ho LEE ; Choon Hee CHUNG ; Sihoon LEE ; Heung Yong JIN ; Jae Hyuk LEE ; Gwanpyo KOH ; Sang-Yong KIM ; Jaetaek KIM ; Ju Hee LEE ; Tae Nyun KIM ; Hyun Jeong JEON ; Ji Hyun LEE ; Jae-Han JEON ; Hye Jin YOO ; Hee Kyung KIM ; Hyeong-Kyu PARK ; Il Seong NAM-GOONG ; Seongbin HONG ; Chul Woo AHN ; Ji Hee YU ; Jong Heon PARK ; Keun-Gyu PARK ; Chan Ho PARK ; Kyong Hye JOUNG ; Ohk-Hyun RYU ; Keun Yong PARK ; Eun-Gyoung HONG ; Bong-Soo CHA ; Kyu Chang WON ; Yoon-Sok CHUNG ; Sin Gon KIM
Endocrinology and Metabolism 2024;39(5):722-731
Background:
Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined.
Methods:
This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months.
Conclusion
This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.
9.Clinical Practice Guideline for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy
Chung Hyun TAE ; Ju Yup LEE ; Moon Kyung JOO ; Chan Hyuk PARK ; Eun Jeong GONG ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Hyun LIM ; Hyuk Soon CHOI ; Miyoung CHOI ; Sang Hoon KIM ; Chul-Hyun LIM ; Jeong-Sik BYEON ; Ki-Nam SHIM ; Geun Am SONG ; Moon Sung LEE ; Jong-Jae PARK ; Oh Young LEE ;
Gut and Liver 2024;18(1):10-26
With an aging population, the number of patients with difficulty swallowing due to medical conditions is gradually increasing. In such cases, enteral nutrition is administered through a temporary nasogastric tube. Long-term use of a nasogastric tube leads to various complications and a decreased quality of life. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the percutaneous placement of a tube into the stomach, aided endoscopically, which may be an alternative to a nasogastric tube when enteral nutritional is required for 4 weeks or more. This paper is the first Korean clinical guideline for PEG. It was developed jointly by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and led by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. These guidelines aimed to provide physicians, including endoscopists, with the indications, use of prophylactic antibiotics, timing of enteric nutrition, tube placement methods, complications, replacement, and tubes removal for PEG based on the currently available clinical evidence.
10.Risk Factors for the Mortality of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in a Non-Centralized Setting: A Nationwide Study
Tae Wan KIM ; Won-Young KIM ; Sunghoon PARK ; Su Hwan LEE ; Onyu PARK ; Taehwa KIM ; Hye Ju YEO ; Jin Ho JANG ; Woo Hyun CHO ; Jin-Won HUH ; Sang-Min LEE ; Chi Ryang CHUNG ; Jongmin LEE ; Jung Soo KIM ; Sung Yoon LIM ; Ae-Rin BAEK ; Jung-Wan YOO ; Ho Cheol KIM ; Eun Young CHOI ; Chul PARK ; Tae-Ok KIM ; Do Sik MOON ; Song-I LEE ; Jae Young MOON ; Sun Jung KWON ; Gil Myeong SEONG ; Won Jai JUNG ; Moon Seong BAEK ;
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2024;39(8):e75-
Background:
Limited data are available on the mortality rates of patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to analyze the relationship between COVID-19 and clinical outcomes for patients receiving ECMO.
Methods:
We retrospectively investigated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring ECMO in 19 hospitals across Korea from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2021. The primary outcome was the 90-day mortality after ECMO initiation. We performed multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of 90-day mortality. Survival differences were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier (KM) method.
Results:
Of 127 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who received ECMO, 70 patients (55.1%) died within 90 days of ECMO initiation. The median age was 64 years, and 63% of patients were male. The incidence of ECMO was increased with age but was decreased after 70 years of age. However, the survival rate was decreased linearly with age. In multivariate analysis, age (OR, 1.048; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.010–1.089; P = 0.014) and receipt of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) (OR, 3.069; 95% CI, 1.312–7.180; P = 0.010) were significantly associated with an increased risk of 90-day mortality. KM curves showed significant differences in survival between groups according to age (65 years) (log-rank P = 0.021) and receipt of CRRT (log-rank P = 0.004).
Conclusion
Older age and receipt of CRRT were associated with higher mortality rates among patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail