Purpose: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have demonstrated significant benefits, but their safety and effectiveness in high-risk patients remain unclear. This study evaluated clinical postoperative outcomes in elderly patients and those with comorbidities undergoing colon cancer surgery. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 1,035 patients who underwent elective colon cancer surgery from 2017 to 2022. A standardized 25-element ERAS protocol was implemented across all groups. Patients were categorized into a control group (aged <70 years without comorbidities, n = 534) and high-risk groups including elderly patients (≥70 years, n = 312) and those with cardiac (n = 60), pulmonary (n = 81), renal (n = 24), or hepatic disease (n = 24). Results: ERAS compliance rates were significantly lower in all high-risk groups compared to controls (79.39% ± 10.9%), with renal disease patients showing the most pronounced reduction (69.69% ± 17.0%). Post-hoc analysis revealed that only renal disease patients demonstrated significantly higher complication rates (45.8% vs. 18.9%, P < 0.01). Despite lower compliance, multivariate analysis revealed ERAS compliance ≥70% as the strongest independent predictor of both length of stay (odds ratio [OR], 0.139; P < 0.001) and complications (OR, 0.298; P < 0.001), substantially outweighing patient risk factors. After adjusting for treatment factors, patient comorbidity groups showed no independent association with clinical outcomes. Conclusion ERAS protocols can be successfully implemented in high-risk patients with appropriate attention to compliance optimization. Treatment factors, particularly ERAS adherence, consistently outweigh patient risk factors in determining outcomes, and well-tailored ERAS implementation should be considered with high-risk patients for perioperative care.

Background: Early oral switch (EOS) has been proposed as an alternative to prolonged intravenous (IV) therapy for Enterobacterales bacteremia; however, its safety and effectiveness have not been clearly established. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether EOS reduces treatment failure in uncomplicated Enterobacterales bacteremia and examined how the timing of switching affects outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared EOS with continued IV therapy in adults with uncomplicated Enterobacterales bacteremia. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. The primary outcome was treatment failure by ≤90 days. Prespecified analyses evaluated the timing of the switch. Results: Across 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria, EOS was associated with lower treatment failure than continued IV therapy (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58–0.89; I²=26%). Switching within 4 days reduced the failure (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44–0.76; I²=0%), whereas switching after 4 days showed no clear advantage (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71–1.06; I²=0%). No evidence of small study effects was observed. Conclusion EOS was associated with a lower risk of treatment failure than prolonged IV therapy, with the greatest benefit observed when the switch occurred within 4 days. These findings should be interpreted with clinical caution given that most of the evidence is observational.

Background: To investigate Korean neurologists' perceptions of the non-standard term ‘jayulsingyeongsiljo’ and their actual evaluation and management of such patients. Methods: We performed an anonymous web-based cross-sectional survey of board-certified Korean neurologists by Korean Society of Pain and Autonomic Disorders between August 13 and September 10, 2025. A questionnaire sent by e-mail asked about demographics, experience with patients labeled with ‘jayulsingyeongsiljo,’ use and perceived usefulness of autonomic function tests, the impact of coronavirus disease 2019, and opinions on terminology and the role of neurologists. Results: In total, 109 neurologists responded. Most reported that patients presenting for ‘jayulsingyeongsiljo’ were young or middle-aged adults and that their numbers had increased over the preceding 2 years. Referrals frequently originated from Korean medicine clinics and other non-neurology departments, often after stand-alone heart rate variability testing. Fatigue, orthostatic intolerance, palpitations, sweating abnormalities, gastrointestinal symptoms, and anxiety or insomnia were common, and autonomic testing was generally regarded as helpful. Eighty percent felt that the risks associated with ‘jayulsingyeongsiljo’ are overstated, and 95% preferred replacing the term with standardized expressions such as autonomic dysfunction. Conclusions Korean neurologists view ‘jayulsingyeongsiljo’ as an unrecognized and potentially misleading label and support society-led standardization of terminology and guidance to improve autonomic dysfunction care and resource use.

Primary breast lymphoma is a rare malignant breast tumor, accounting for <1% of all breast cancers. Among them, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is the most common histologic subtype.However, primary mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma is less common and more indolent than diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and primary MALT lymphoma of the breast is extremely rare. We report a case of bilateral breast cancer in a 62-year-old woman with primary MALT lymphoma in right braest and contralateral invasive breast cancer in left breast. The patient presented with a palpable right breast lump, which appeared as a noncalcified mass on mammography and an indistinct irregular hypoechoic mass with internal vascularity on breast ultrasonography. The mass was pathologically confirmed by excisional biopsy as primary MALT lymphoma. The patient underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI, which additionally detected a small suspicious mass in the left breast. This was a clinically and mammographically occult breast cancer diagnosed as invasive ductal carcinoma.

Background: The defense and veterans pain rating scale (DVPRS) is a pain assessment tool combining a numerical rating scale (NRS) with descriptive words, colors, and facial expressions. This study aimed to validate the Korean version of the DVPRS (K-DVPRS) for postoperative pain assessment. Methods: This study included patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic abdominal surgery. The original DVPRS was translated into Korean using a forward-backward method. Pain intensities at rest and during coughing were assessed at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively using the NRS and K-DVPRS, respectively. The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was also used. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the K-DVPRS were evaluated. Results: Of the 174 patients screened, 150 were enrolled, and 148 completed the study. The K-DVPRS had strong convergent validity with the NRS at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (ρ: 0.75 to 0.78, all P < 0.001). Construct validity was confirmed by significant differences in pain scores based on surgical extent and duration. The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.77 and 0.85 at 24 and 48 hours, respectively), and test-retest reliability at 24 hours was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.90 at rest and 0.95 during coughing).Responsiveness, measured by Cliff’s effect size, was high from preoperative to 24 hours postoperatively and moderate from 24 to 48 hours. At 48 hours, the K-DVPRS had stronger correlations with the EQ-5D-5L index and EQVAS than with the NRS. Conclusions The K-DVPRS is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing postoperative pain in Korean patients.

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.

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.

Background: The defense and veterans pain rating scale (DVPRS) is a pain assessment tool combining a numerical rating scale (NRS) with descriptive words, colors, and facial expressions. This study aimed to validate the Korean version of the DVPRS (K-DVPRS) for postoperative pain assessment. Methods: This study included patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic abdominal surgery. The original DVPRS was translated into Korean using a forward-backward method. Pain intensities at rest and during coughing were assessed at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively using the NRS and K-DVPRS, respectively. The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was also used. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the K-DVPRS were evaluated. Results: Of the 174 patients screened, 150 were enrolled, and 148 completed the study. The K-DVPRS had strong convergent validity with the NRS at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (ρ: 0.75 to 0.78, all P < 0.001). Construct validity was confirmed by significant differences in pain scores based on surgical extent and duration. The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.77 and 0.85 at 24 and 48 hours, respectively), and test-retest reliability at 24 hours was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.90 at rest and 0.95 during coughing).Responsiveness, measured by Cliff’s effect size, was high from preoperative to 24 hours postoperatively and moderate from 24 to 48 hours. At 48 hours, the K-DVPRS had stronger correlations with the EQ-5D-5L index and EQVAS than with the NRS. Conclusions The K-DVPRS is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing postoperative pain in Korean patients.