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: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected 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: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected 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: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Background/Aims: Despite advances in imaging and endoscopic technology, diagnostic modalities for small bowel tumors are simultaneously performed. We investigated the discrepancy rate between each modality and predictive factors of discrepancy in patients with definite small bowel tumors. Methods: Data of patients with definite small bowel tumors who underwent both device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) and computed tomography (CT) were retrieved from web-based enteroscopy registry database in Korea. Predictive risk factors associated with discrepancy were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. Results: Among 998 patients, 210 (21.0%) were diagnosed with small bowel tumor using DAE, in 193 patients with definite small bowel tumor, DAE and CT were performed. Of these patients, 12 (6.2%) showed discrepancy between examinations. Among 49 patients who underwent DAE and video capsule endoscopy (VCE) examination, 13 (26.5%) showed discrepancy between examinations. No significant independent risk factors were associated with concordance between DAE and CT in multivariate logistic regression analysis among the patients. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, red blood cell transfusion was negatively associated with concordance between DAE and VCE in patients with small bowel tumor (odds ratio, 0.163; 95% confidence interval, 0.026 to 1.004; p=0.050). Conclusions For small bowel tumors, the discrepancy rate between DAE and CT was 6.2%, and 26.5% between DAE and VCE. Despite developments in cross-sectional imaging (VCE and DAE modalities), discrepancies still exist. For small bowel bleeding that require significant transfusion while showing insignificant VCE findings, DAE should be considered as the next diagnostic approach, considering the possibility of missed small bowel tumor.

Background/Aims: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a leading cause of emergency hospitalization. We present the current diagnostic and therapeutic status of AP as revealed by analysis of a large multicenter dataset. Methods: The medical records of patients diagnosed with AP between 2018 and 2019 in 12 tertiary medical centers in Korea were retrospectively reviewed. Results: In total, 676 patients were included, of whom 388 (57.4%) were male, and the mean age of all patients was 58.6 years. There were 355 (52.5%), 301 (44.5%), and 20 (3.0%) patients with mild, moderate, and severe AP, respectively, as assessed by the revised Atlanta classification. The most common etiologies of AP were biliary issues (41.6%) and alcohol consumption (24.6%), followed by hypertriglyceridemia (6.8%). The etiology was not identified in 111 (16.4%) patients at the time of initial admission. The overall mortality rate was 3.3%, increasing up to 45.0% among patients with severe AP. Notably, 70.0% (14/20) of patients with severe AP and 81.5% (154/189) of patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome had received <4 L per day during the initial 24 hours of admission. Only 23.8% (67/281) of acute biliary pancreatitis patients underwent cholecystectomy during their initial admission. In total, 17.8% of patients experienced recurrent attacks during follow-up. However, none of the patients with acute biliary pancreatitis experienced recurrent attacks if they had undergone cholecystectomy during their initial admission. Conclusions This study provides insights into the current status of AP in Korea, including its etiology, severity, and management. Results reveal disparities between clinical guidelines and their practical implementation for AP treatment.