Purpose: We aimed to identify changes in surgical indications in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) in the biologics era in a single tertiary center. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, 108 patients with UC who underwent abdominal surgery for UC at Seoul National University Hospital from 2000 to 2021 were included. We compared the total number of patients undergoing UC before and after the introduction of biologic therapy. Results: Of the 108 patients with UC (male, 59 and female, 49; mean age, 46.8 years), 30 (27.8%) underwent surgery for neoplasms and 78 (72.2%) for medical intractability without neoplasms. The duration between diagnosis and surgery varied significantly (126.00 months vs. 60.50 months, P = 0.001). A significant difference was also noted in the surgical indications according to time (P = 0.02). Between 2000 and 2010, 12 patients (19.4%) underwent surgery for UC with neoplasms and 50 (80.6%) for UC without neoplasms, while between 2011 and 2021, 18 (39.1%) and 28 patients (60.9%) underwent surgery for UC with and without neoplasms, respectively. Conclusion Since 2011, when biological agents were covered by insurance in South Korea, there has been a relative increase in the incidence of surgical indications for neoplasia cases. Focusing on closely monitoring individuals with longterm UC for neoplasms is necessary.

Purpose: We aimed to identify changes in surgical indications in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) in the biologics era in a single tertiary center. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, 108 patients with UC who underwent abdominal surgery for UC at Seoul National University Hospital from 2000 to 2021 were included. We compared the total number of patients undergoing UC before and after the introduction of biologic therapy. Results: Of the 108 patients with UC (male, 59 and female, 49; mean age, 46.8 years), 30 (27.8%) underwent surgery for neoplasms and 78 (72.2%) for medical intractability without neoplasms. The duration between diagnosis and surgery varied significantly (126.00 months vs. 60.50 months, P = 0.001). A significant difference was also noted in the surgical indications according to time (P = 0.02). Between 2000 and 2010, 12 patients (19.4%) underwent surgery for UC with neoplasms and 50 (80.6%) for UC without neoplasms, while between 2011 and 2021, 18 (39.1%) and 28 patients (60.9%) underwent surgery for UC with and without neoplasms, respectively. Conclusion Since 2011, when biological agents were covered by insurance in South Korea, there has been a relative increase in the incidence of surgical indications for neoplasia cases. Focusing on closely monitoring individuals with longterm UC for neoplasms is necessary.

Purpose: We aimed to identify changes in surgical indications in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) in the biologics era in a single tertiary center. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, 108 patients with UC who underwent abdominal surgery for UC at Seoul National University Hospital from 2000 to 2021 were included. We compared the total number of patients undergoing UC before and after the introduction of biologic therapy. Results: Of the 108 patients with UC (male, 59 and female, 49; mean age, 46.8 years), 30 (27.8%) underwent surgery for neoplasms and 78 (72.2%) for medical intractability without neoplasms. The duration between diagnosis and surgery varied significantly (126.00 months vs. 60.50 months, P = 0.001). A significant difference was also noted in the surgical indications according to time (P = 0.02). Between 2000 and 2010, 12 patients (19.4%) underwent surgery for UC with neoplasms and 50 (80.6%) for UC without neoplasms, while between 2011 and 2021, 18 (39.1%) and 28 patients (60.9%) underwent surgery for UC with and without neoplasms, respectively. Conclusion Since 2011, when biological agents were covered by insurance in South Korea, there has been a relative increase in the incidence of surgical indications for neoplasia cases. Focusing on closely monitoring individuals with longterm UC for neoplasms is necessary.

Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.

Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.

Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.

Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.

Ulcerative colitis (UC), a relapsing-remitting chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), has a variable natural course but potentially severe disease course. Since the development of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents has changed the natural disease course of moderate-to-severe UC, therapeutic options for patients who failed conventional treatments are expanding rapidly. IBD clinical trials have demonstrated the potential efficacy and safety of novel biologics such as anti-integrin α4β7 and anti-interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibodies and small molecules such as a Janus kinase inhibitor. Anti-TNF biosimilars also have been approved and are widely used in IBD patients. Wise drug choices should be made considering evidence-based efficacy and safety. However, the best position of these drugs remains several questions, with limited data from direct comparative trials. In addition, there are still concerns to be elucidated on the effect of therapeutic drug monitoring and combination therapy with immunomodulators. The appropriate treatment regimens in acute severe UC and the risk of perioperative use of biologics are unclear. As novel biologics and small molecules have been approved in Korea, we present the Korean guidelines for medical management of adult outpatients with moderate-to-severe UC and adult hospitalized patients with acute severe UC, focusing on biologics and small molecules.

Background/Aims: Radial stretch evokes an increase or decrease in contractions in the lower gastrointestinal tract via mechanosensory enteric neurons that project into the muscle layers. We aim to elucidate the differences in stretch reflexes according to their location in the human colon. Methods: We used healthy intestinal smooth muscle tissue excised during elective colon cancer surgery. Conventional intracellular recordings from colonic muscle cells and tension recordings of colonic segments were performed. Radial stretch was evoked through balloon catheter inflation. Changes in the membrane potential and frequency, amplitude, and area under the curve of muscle contractions were recorded before and after the radial stretch at proximal and distal segment sites. Results: In intracellular circular muscle recordings, hyperpolarization was noted at the distal site of sigmoid colonic segments after radial stretch, in contrast to depolarization at all other sites. In tension recordings at proximal ascending or sigmoid colonic segment sites, contractile activation was observed with statistically significant increases in the frequency, amplitude, and area under the curve after radial stretch. Distal sites of ascending and sigmoid colonic segments showed increase and decrease in contraction, respectively. Conclusion Radial stretch in the human colon (in vitro) evokes excitatory activity at both proximal and distal sites of the ascending colon and at the proximal site of the sigmoid colon, whereas it elicits inhibitory activity at the distal site of the sigmoid colon.

Chronic constipation is one of the most common digestive diseases encountered in clinical practice. Constipation manifests as a variety of symptoms, such as infrequent bowel movements, hard stools, feeling of incomplete evacuation, straining at defecation, a sense of anorectal blockage during defecation, and use of digital maneuvers to assist defecation. During the diagnosis of chronic constipation, the Bristol Stool Form Scale, colonoscopy, and a digital rectal examination are useful for objective symptom evaluation and differential diagnosis of secondary constipation. Physiological tests for functional constipation have complementary roles and are recommended for patients who have failed to respond to treatment with available laxatives and those who are strongly suspected of having a defecatory disorder. As new evidence on the diagnosis and management of functional constipation emerged, the need to revise the previous guideline was suggested. Therefore, these evidence-based guidelines have proposed recommendations developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment options available for functional constipation. The benefits and cautions of new pharmacological agents (such as lubiprostone and linaclotide) and conventional laxatives have been described through a meta-analysis. The guidelines consist of 34 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and epidemiology of functional constipation, 9 regarding diagnoses, and 22 regarding managements. Clinicians (including primary physicians, general health professionals, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients can refer to these guidelines to make informed decisions regarding the management of functional constipation.