Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Background and Objectives: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events (NACEs) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. Whether the benefits of de-escalation are sustained in highly thrombotic conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy in patients with STEMI or non-STsegment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). Methods: This is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomized to prasugrel de-escalation (5 mg daily) or conventional dose (10 mg daily) at 1-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was a NACE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and bleeding events of grade ≥2 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria at 1 year. Results: Among 2,338 patients included in the randomization, 326 patients were diagnosed with STEMI. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced with de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48– 0.89; p=0.006 for de-escalation vs. conventional), mainly driven by a reduced bleeding. However, in those with STEMI, there was no difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48–2.26; p=0.915; p for interaction=0.271). Conclusions Prasugrel dose de-escalation reduced the rate of NACE and bleeding, without increasing the rate of ischemic events in NSTE-ACS patients but not in STEMI patients.