Purpose: This study examined nationwide data regarding laparoscopic and robotic surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Korea. Methods: Nationwide data concerning patients who underwent surgery for CRC from 2019 to 2023 were obtained from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. Results: From 2019 to 2023, a total of 109,573 patients with CRC underwent surgical resection in Korea. Among these, open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery comprised 17.2%, 71.5%, and 11.3%, respectively. Open surgery decreased from 18.3% in 2019 to 15.2% in 2023, whereas robotic surgery increased from 10.3% in 2019 to 12.7% in 2023. Regarding rectal cancer, the rate of robotic surgery increased from 23.0% in 2019 to 28.2% in 2023, and the rate of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) increased from 86.9% in 2019 to 89.2% in 2023.Patients with National Health Insurance had significantly shorter lengths of hospital stay after surgery than those with medical aid for all surgical methods (p < 0.0001). With respect to hospital size, 74,282 CRC surgeries (67.8%) were performed in tertiary general hospitals and 33,050 (30.2%) in general hospitals. By the region, 47,140 cases (43.0%) were performed in Seoul, 19,961 (18.2%) in Gyeonggi, and 7,417 (6.8%) in Daegu. Ostomy was created in 16,222 CRC surgeries (14.8%). Conclusion The rate of MIS adoption for CRC in Korea has increased, reaching 84.7% in 2023. The rate of laparoscopic surgery exceeded 70% and has plateaued. In contrast, the rate of robotic surgery adoption has steadily increased, particularly for rectal cancer, where it surpassed 28% in 2023.

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: This study examined nationwide data regarding laparoscopic and robotic surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Korea. Methods: Nationwide data concerning patients who underwent surgery for CRC from 2019 to 2023 were obtained from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. Results: From 2019 to 2023, a total of 109,573 patients with CRC underwent surgical resection in Korea. Among these, open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery comprised 17.2%, 71.5%, and 11.3%, respectively. Open surgery decreased from 18.3% in 2019 to 15.2% in 2023, whereas robotic surgery increased from 10.3% in 2019 to 12.7% in 2023. Regarding rectal cancer, the rate of robotic surgery increased from 23.0% in 2019 to 28.2% in 2023, and the rate of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) increased from 86.9% in 2019 to 89.2% in 2023.Patients with National Health Insurance had significantly shorter lengths of hospital stay after surgery than those with medical aid for all surgical methods (p < 0.0001). With respect to hospital size, 74,282 CRC surgeries (67.8%) were performed in tertiary general hospitals and 33,050 (30.2%) in general hospitals. By the region, 47,140 cases (43.0%) were performed in Seoul, 19,961 (18.2%) in Gyeonggi, and 7,417 (6.8%) in Daegu. Ostomy was created in 16,222 CRC surgeries (14.8%). Conclusion The rate of MIS adoption for CRC in Korea has increased, reaching 84.7% in 2023. The rate of laparoscopic surgery exceeded 70% and has plateaued. In contrast, the rate of robotic surgery adoption has steadily increased, particularly for rectal cancer, where it surpassed 28% in 2023.

Purpose: This study examined nationwide data regarding laparoscopic and robotic surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Korea. Methods: Nationwide data concerning patients who underwent surgery for CRC from 2019 to 2023 were obtained from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. Results: From 2019 to 2023, a total of 109,573 patients with CRC underwent surgical resection in Korea. Among these, open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery comprised 17.2%, 71.5%, and 11.3%, respectively. Open surgery decreased from 18.3% in 2019 to 15.2% in 2023, whereas robotic surgery increased from 10.3% in 2019 to 12.7% in 2023. Regarding rectal cancer, the rate of robotic surgery increased from 23.0% in 2019 to 28.2% in 2023, and the rate of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) increased from 86.9% in 2019 to 89.2% in 2023.Patients with National Health Insurance had significantly shorter lengths of hospital stay after surgery than those with medical aid for all surgical methods (p < 0.0001). With respect to hospital size, 74,282 CRC surgeries (67.8%) were performed in tertiary general hospitals and 33,050 (30.2%) in general hospitals. By the region, 47,140 cases (43.0%) were performed in Seoul, 19,961 (18.2%) in Gyeonggi, and 7,417 (6.8%) in Daegu. Ostomy was created in 16,222 CRC surgeries (14.8%). Conclusion The rate of MIS adoption for CRC in Korea has increased, reaching 84.7% in 2023. The rate of laparoscopic surgery exceeded 70% and has plateaued. In contrast, the rate of robotic surgery adoption has steadily increased, particularly for rectal cancer, where it surpassed 28% in 2023.

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.

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.

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.

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: This study investigated the efficacy of intravesical gemcitabine as an alternative to bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) therapy. Materials and Methods: Data were retrospectively collected across seven institutions from February 1999 to May 2023. Inclusion criteria included patients with intermediate- or high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) who underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumors (TURBT) and received at least four sessions of intravesical gemcitabine or BCG induction therapy. Patient characteristics, complete remission (CR), occurrence, and progression rates were compared. Results: In total, 149 patients were included in this study (gemcitabine, 63; BCG, 86). No differences were apparent between the two groups in baseline characteristics, except for the follow-up period (gemcitabine, 9.2±5.9 months vs. BCG, 43.9±41.4 months, p<0.001). There were no consistent significant differences observed between the two groups in the 3-month (gemcitabine, 98.4% vs. BCG, 95.3%; p=0.848), 6-month (94.9% vs. 90.0%, respectively; p=0.793) and 1-year CR rates (84.2% vs. 83.3%, respectively;p=0.950). Also, there was no significant statistical difference in progression-free survival between the two groups (p=0.953). The occurrence rates of adverse events were similar between the groups (22.2% vs. 22.1%; p=0.989); however, the rate of Clavien– Dindo grade 2 or higher was significantly higher in the BCG group (1.6% vs. 16.3%, respectively; p<0.001). Conclusions Intravesical gemcitabine demonstrated efficacy comparable to BCG therapy for the first year in patients with intermediate- and high-risk NMIBC. However, long-term follow-up studies are warranted.

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 based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exclusively. If fewer than two RCTs were available, studies using 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.