Obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal anomaly (OHVIRA) syndrome is a rare Müllerian duct anomaly, commonly characterized by uterus didelphys, obstructed hemivagina, and ipsilateral renal agenesis. While these are the three most common genitourinary anomalies in OHVIRA syndrome, a spectrum of urogenital anomalies can be present. Knowledge of this spectrum is crucial for proper patient management and treatment planning. In this case series, we report on five patients with OHVIRA syndrome, each presenting with a urogenital anomaly other than the typical renal agenesis or uterus didelphys. We highlight the gynecological complications encountered, which clinicians and radiologists should be aware of.

Obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal anomaly (OHVIRA) syndrome is a rare Müllerian duct anomaly, commonly characterized by uterus didelphys, obstructed hemivagina, and ipsilateral renal agenesis. While these are the three most common genitourinary anomalies in OHVIRA syndrome, a spectrum of urogenital anomalies can be present. Knowledge of this spectrum is crucial for proper patient management and treatment planning. In this case series, we report on five patients with OHVIRA syndrome, each presenting with a urogenital anomaly other than the typical renal agenesis or uterus didelphys. We highlight the gynecological complications encountered, which clinicians and radiologists should be aware of.

It is difficult to determine a cause of bile duct stricture and dilatation. Eosinophilic cholangitis, a rare benign condition, may be one cause of bile duct stricture and dilatation. It can be evaluated using various methods of histopathology, radiographs, endoscopy, and hematologic findings. Treatment generally involves steroid therapy which can lead to improvement. This case report will discuss eosinophilic cholangitis, emphasizing that while it can easily be overlooked but should be considered in differential diagnoses.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the wound cosmesis of a single-incision approach on scar assessment after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Methods: This study included 32 patients undergoing single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and 61 patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer at 3 tertiary referral hospitals between September 2011 and December 2019. We modified and applied the Korean version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to assess cosmetic outcomes. To assess the interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient values for the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), the surgeons evaluated 5 images of postoperative scars. Results: No significant differences were observed in the time before the return of normal bowel function, time to sips of water and soft diet initiation, length of in-hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate. The SPLS group had a shorter total incision length than the MPLS group. The POSAS favored the SPLS approach, revealing significant differences in the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS), OSAS, and overall scores. The SPLS approach was an independent factor influencing the POSAS, PSAS, and OSAS scores. Eleven colorectal surgeons had a significantly substantial intraclass coefficient. Conclusion The cosmetic outcomes of SPLS as assessed by the patients and surgeons were superior to those of MPLS in colon cancer. Reducing the number of ports is an independent factor affecting scar assessment by patients and observers.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the wound cosmesis of a single-incision approach on scar assessment after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Methods: This study included 32 patients undergoing single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and 61 patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer at 3 tertiary referral hospitals between September 2011 and December 2019. We modified and applied the Korean version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to assess cosmetic outcomes. To assess the interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient values for the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), the surgeons evaluated 5 images of postoperative scars. Results: No significant differences were observed in the time before the return of normal bowel function, time to sips of water and soft diet initiation, length of in-hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate. The SPLS group had a shorter total incision length than the MPLS group. The POSAS favored the SPLS approach, revealing significant differences in the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS), OSAS, and overall scores. The SPLS approach was an independent factor influencing the POSAS, PSAS, and OSAS scores. Eleven colorectal surgeons had a significantly substantial intraclass coefficient. Conclusion The cosmetic outcomes of SPLS as assessed by the patients and surgeons were superior to those of MPLS in colon cancer. Reducing the number of ports is an independent factor affecting scar assessment by patients and observers.