Stoma formation for fecal diversion is a common procedure in patients with various complicated conditions after colorectal surgery, such as anastomotic leakage. The singleincision laparoscopic approach for stoma creation offers several advantages, including a reduction in surgical wounds and related complications as well as optimal visualization of the surgical field. This video demonstrates a single-port–assisted diverting ileostomy in a 61-yearold man with anastomotic leakage following low anterior resection for advanced rectal cancer.

Stoma formation for fecal diversion is a common procedure in patients with various complicated conditions after colorectal surgery, such as anastomotic leakage. The singleincision laparoscopic approach for stoma creation offers several advantages, including a reduction in surgical wounds and related complications as well as optimal visualization of the surgical field. This video demonstrates a single-port–assisted diverting ileostomy in a 61-yearold man with anastomotic leakage following low anterior resection for advanced rectal cancer.

Stoma formation for fecal diversion is a common procedure in patients with various complicated conditions after colorectal surgery, such as anastomotic leakage. The singleincision laparoscopic approach for stoma creation offers several advantages, including a reduction in surgical wounds and related complications as well as optimal visualization of the surgical field. This video demonstrates a single-port–assisted diverting ileostomy in a 61-yearold man with anastomotic leakage following low anterior resection for advanced rectal cancer.

Complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation with D3 lymphadenectomy are important surgical principles for improving oncological outcomes in colon cancer. The cranial-first approach is a colonic mobilization–first approach to radical right hemicolectomy, which has several advantages, including early feasibility assessment, safe dissection from surrounding organs, preestablished inferior margin of lymph node dissection, and revelation of the tangible anatomy of the tributaries of the gastrocolic trunk. This video demonstrates the cranial-first approach to radical right hemicolectomy in a 66-year-old man with locally advanced cecal cancer.

Purpose: Managing recurrent inguinal hernias is complex, and choosing the right surgical approach (laparoscopic vs. open) is vital for patient outcomes. This study compared the outcomes of using the same vs. different surgical approaches for initial and subsequent hernia repairs. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent recurrent inguinal hernia repair at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital between January 2014 and May 2023. Patients were divided into the “concordant” and “discordant” groups, comprising patients who underwent same and different approaches in both surgeries, respectively. Preoperative baseline characteristics, index surgery data, postoperative outcomes, and recurrence rates were analyzed and compared. Results: In total, 131 patients were enrolled; the concordant and discordant groups comprised 31 (open, n = 19; laparoscopic, n = 12) and 100 patients (open to laparoscopic, n = 68; laparoscopic to open, n = 32), respectively. No significant differences were observed in the mean operation time (50.5 ± 21.7 minutes vs. 50.2 ± 20.0 minutes, P = 0.979), complication rates (6.5% vs. 14.0%, P = 0.356), or 36-month cumulative recurrence rates (9.8% vs. 9.8%; P = 0.865). The mean postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the discordant than in the concordant group (1.8 ± 0.7 vs. 1.4 ± 0.6, P = 0.003). Conclusion Most recurrent inguinal hernia repairs were performed using the discordant surgical approach. Overall, concordance in the surgical approach did not significantly affect postoperative outcomes. Therefore, the selection of the surgical approach based on the patient’s condition and surgeon’s preference may be advisable.

Background: Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months. Conclusion This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of prophylactic abdominal drainage (AD) in laparoscopic hemicolectomy, focusing on assessing postoperative pain outcomes. Methods: Patients were categorized into two groups: those with and without AD (AD group vs.no-AD group). A numerical rating scale (NRS) was used to assess postoperative pain on each postoperative day (POD). Further, the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used to reduce intergroup bias. Results: In total, 204 patients who underwent laparoscopic hemicolectomies by a single surgeon between June 2013 and September 2022 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. After adjusting for IPTW, NRS scores on POD 2 were significantly lower in the no-AD group (3.2 ± 0.8 vs. 3.4 ± 0.8, p = 0.043). Further examination of postoperative outcomes showed no statistically significant differences in complications between the AD (17.3%) and no-AD (12.4%) groups (p = 0.170). The postoperative length of hospital stay was 7.3 ± 2.8 days in the AD group and 6.9 ± 3.0 days in the no-AD group, with no significant difference (p = 0.298). Time to first flatus was 3.0 ± 0.9 days in the AD group and 2.7 ± 0.9 days in the no-AD group, with no significant difference (p = 0.078). Regarding readmission within 1 month, there were four cases each in the AD (2.3%) and no-AD (1.7%) groups, with no significant difference (p = 0.733). Conclusion Laparoscopic hemicolectomy without AD resulted in no significant differences in postoperative clinical outcomes, except for postoperative pain. This finding suggests that prophylactic AD may exacerbate postoperative pain.

Background: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has prohibited epidural steroid injection (ESI) with particulate steroids. Thus, this study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESI with two nonparticulate steroids, dexamethasone and betamethasone. Methods: The eligible patients (n = 600) who received ESI (0 week) with dexamethasone (ESI-dexa) or betamethasone (ESI-beta) had follow-up visits at 2, 4, and 8 weeks with a phone interview at 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of effective responders without pain or who were much improved at 2 weeks. The secondary endpoints were the proportion of crossover injections at 2 weeks; changes in the visual analog scale (VAS) and disability index scores at 2, 4, and 8 weeks; the number of additional ESIs in 12 weeks; the number of participants having spinal surgery, as well as the incidence of adverse events over the 12 weeks. Results: The proportion of effective responders at 2 weeks was not different between ESI-beta (72/216, 33.3%) and ESI-dexa (63/200, 31.5%; P = 0.670). Adverse events were more common with ESI-dexa (40/200, 20.0%) than with ESI-beta (24/216, 11.1%; P = 0.012). VAS scores decreased more with ESI-beta than with ESI-dexa at 2 weeks (difference, 0.35; P = 0.023) and 4 weeks (difference, 0.42; P = 0.011). The disability score improved significantly more with ESI-beta compared with ESI-dexa at 2 weeks (difference, 3.37; P = 0.009), 4 weeks (difference, 4.01; P = 0.002), and 8 weeks (difference, 3.54; P = 0.007). Conclusions Betamethasone would be more appropriate for ESI.

Purpose: This study was performed to compare the oncologic outcomes between nonradical management and total mesorectal excision in good responders after chemoradiotherapy. Methods: We analyzed 75 patients, who underwent 14 watch-and-wait, 30 local excision, and 31 total mesorectal excision, in ycT0–1N0M0 based on magnetic resonance imaging after chemoradiotherapy for advanced mid-to-low rectal cancer in 3 referral hospitals. The nonradical management group underwent surveillance with additional sigmoidoscopy and rectal magnetic resonance imaging every 3–6 months within the first 2 years. Results: Nonradical management group had more low-lying tumors (P < 0.001) and less lymph node metastasis based on magnetic resonance imaging (P = 0.004). However, cT stage, ycT, and ycN stage were not different between the 2 groups. With a median follow-up period of 64.7 months, the 5-year locoregional failure rate was higher in the nonradical management group than in the total mesorectal excision group (16.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.013). However, the 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates of the nonradical management and total mesorectal excision groups were not different (95.2% vs. 93.5%, P = 0.467; 76.4% vs. 83.6%, P = 0.665; respectively). Conclusion This study shows that nonradical management for ycT0–1N0 mid-to-low rectal cancer may be an alternative treatment to total mesorectal excision under proper surveillance and management for oncologic events.