Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed. Results: Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240). Conclusions This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed. Results: Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240). Conclusions This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed. Results: Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240). Conclusions This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

Purpose: To assess the diagnostic potential of whole-exome sequencing (WES) and elucidate the clinical and genetic characteristics of primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) in the Korean population. Materials and Methods: Forty-seven patients clinically suspected of having PCD were enrolled at a tertiary medical center. WES was performed in all patients, and seven patients received biopsy of cilia and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Results: Overall, PCD was diagnosed in 10 (21.3%) patients: eight by WES (8/47, 17%), four by TEM. Among patients diagnosed as PCD based on TEM results, two patients showed consistent results with WES and TEM of PCD (2/4, 50%). In addition, five patients, who were not included in the final PCD diagnosis group, had variants of unknown significance in PCD-related genes (5/47, 10.6%).The most frequent pathogenic (P)/likely pathogenic (LP) variants were detected in DNAH11 (n=4, 21.1%), DRC1 (n=4, 21.1%), and DNAH5 (n=4, 21.1%). Among the detected 17 P/LP variants in PCD-related genes in this study, 8 (47.1%) were identified as novel variants. Regarding the genotype–phenotype correlation in this study, the authors experienced severe PCD cases caused by the LP/P variants in MCIDAS, DRC1, and CCDC39. Conclusion Through this study, we were able to confirm the value of WES as one of the diagnostic tools for PCD, which increases with TEM, rather than single gene tests. These results will prove useful to hospitals with limited access to PCD diagnostic testing but with relatively efficient in-house or outsourced access to genetic testing at a pre-symptomatic or early disease stage.

Background/Aims: Synchronous multiple gastric cancer (SMGC) accounts for approximately 6% to 14% of gastric cancer (GC) cases. This study aimed to identify risk factors for SMGC. Methods: A total of 14,603 patients diagnosed with GC were prospectively enrolled. Data including age, sex, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, family history, p53 expression, microsatellite instability, cancer classification, lymph node metastasis, and treatment were collected. Risk factors were analyzed using logistic regression analysis between a single GC and SMGC. Results: The incidence of SMGC was 4.04%, and that of early GC (EGC) and advanced GC (AGC) was 5.43% and 3.11%, respectively. Patients with SMGC were older (65.33 years vs 61.75 years, p<0.001) and more likely to be male. Lymph node metastasis was found in 27% of patients with SMGC and 32% of patients with single GC. Multivariate analysis showed that SMGC was associated with sex (male odds ratio [OR], 1.669; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.223 to 2.278; p=0.001), age (≥65 years OR, 1.532; 95% CI, 1.169 to 2.008; p=0.002), and EGC (OR, 1.929; 95% CI, 1.432 to 2.600; p<0.001). Survival rates were affected by Lauren classification, sex, tumor size, cancer type, distant metastasis, and venous invasion but were not related to the number of GCs. However, the survival rate of AGC with SMGC was very high. Conclusions SMGC had unique characteristics such as male sex, older age, and EGC, and the survival rate of AGC, in which the intestinal type was much more frequent, was very good (Trial registration number: NCT04973631).