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.

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: Surgical resection, the primary treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC), is often linked with postoperative complications that adversely affect the overall survival rates (OS). The pan-immune-inflammation value (PIV), a novel biomarker, is promising in evaluating cancer prognoses. We aimed to explore the impact of preoperative immune inflammation status on postoperative and long-term oncological outcomes in patients with CRC. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 203 patients with CRC who underwent surgery (January 2016–June 2020) was conducted. The preoperative PIV was calculated as [(neutrophil count + platelet count + monocyte count) / lymphocyte counts]. The PIV optimal cutoff value was determined based on the OS using the Contal and O’Quigley methods. Results: A PIV value ≥155.90 was defined as high. Patients were categorized into low-PIV (n = 85) and high-PIV (n = 118) groups. Perioperative clinical outcomes (total operation time, time to gas out, sips of water, soft diet, and hospital stay) were not significantly different between the groups. The high-PIV group exhibited more postoperative complications (P = 0.024), and larger tumor size compared with the low-PIV group. Multivariate analysis identified that American Society of Anesthesiologists grade III (P = 0.046) and high-PIV (P = 0.049) were significantly associated with postoperative complications. The low-PIV group demonstrated higher OS (P = 0.001) and disease-free survival rates (DFS) (P = 0.021) compared with the high-PIV group. Advanced N stage (P = 0.005) and high-PIV levels (P = 0.047) were the identified independent prognostic factors for OS, whereas advanced N stage (P = 0.045) was an independent prognostic factor for DFS. Conclusion Elevated preoperative PIV was associated with an increased incidence of postoperative complications and served as an independent prognostic factor for OS.

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved empagliflozin for reducing cardiovascular mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, limited data are available on the generalizability of empagliflozin to clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated real-world eligibility and potential cost-effectiveness based on a nationwide prospective HF registry. Methods: A total of 3,108 HFrEF and 2,070 HFpEF patients from the Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) registry were analyzed. Eligibility was estimated by inclusion and exclusion criteria of EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Reduced) and EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) trials and by FDA & EMA label criteria. The cost-utility analysis was done using a Markov model to project the lifetime medical cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results: Among the KorAHF patients, 91.4% met FDA & EMA label criteria, while 44.7% met the clinical trial criteria. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of empagliflozin was calculated at US$6,764 per QALY in the overall population, which is far below a threshold of US$18,182 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness benefit was more evident in patients with HFrEF (US$5,012 per QALY) than HFpEF (US$8,971 per QALY). Conclusion There is a large discrepancy in real-world eligibility for empagliflozin between FDA & EMA labels and clinical trial criteria. Empagliflozin is cost-effective in HF patients regardless of ejection fraction in South Korea health care setting. The efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in real-world HF patients should be further investigated for a broader range of clinical applications.

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of skin adhesives and to compare postoperative and cosmetic outcomes after wound closure in single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) between skin adhesives and steri-strips. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study. We included 22 and 47 patients in whom skin adhesive and steri-strips were used respectively, for skin closure after subcuticular suturing in SPLA between August 2014 and 2020. The patient scar assessment questionnaire (PSAQ) was completed postoperatively to assess postoperative cosmetic outcomes. Results: On the postoperative day, patients in whom skin adhesive was used had significantly lower numeric rating scores than in whom steri-strips were used (2.8 ± 0.8 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8, p < 0.001). The frequency of analgesic administration within 24 hours and between 24 and 48 hours after surgery was significantly lower in the skin adhesive group compared to the wound closure strip group (1.4 ± 0.8 vs. 2.7 ± 1.2, p = 0.013 and 0.2 ± 0.4 vs. 0.7 ± 0.9, p = 0.002, respectively). In the PSAQ, “satisfaction with appearance” and “satisfaction with symptoms” subitem scores were significantly lower in patients in whom skin adhesive was used (11.3 ± 3.0 vs. 15.1 ± 4.5, p = 0.006 and 6.5 ± 1.8 vs. 9.5 ± 3.3, p = 0.003), whereas, “appearance” and “consciousness” subitems revealed no statistically significant differences between the groups. Conclusion Liquid skin adhesive closures seem to be safe and feasible and cause less postoperative pain, resulting in greater patient satisfaction with postoperative scars than wound closure strip closure after subcuticular suturing in SPLA.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women worldwide. Breast cancer often metastasizes to the regional lymph nodes, bone, brain, liver, and lungs, whereas gastrointestinal tract metastases are rare. Herein, we present a rare case of rectal metastasis from breast cancer that occurred during palliative chemotherapy. A 69-year-old female with a history of invasive ductal carcinoma, negative for hormonal receptors and positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) receptor, underwent various treatments, including neoadjuvant chemotherapy, breast-conserving surgery, and adjuvant therapy. Eight months postoperatively, the patient experienced axillary lymph node recurrence, requiring palliative chemotherapy. Despite ongoing treatment, metastatic lesions were confirmed in the lungs and pleura. During palliative chemotherapy, the patient developed anal pain, and subsequent examination revealed an infiltrating rectal lesion. Despite histological confirmation of metastatic breast carcinoma and tubular adenoma, a multidisciplinary decision was made regarding palliative chemotherapy over surgical intervention. Eribulin was administered, but due to the patient’s inability to tolerate the treatment, she passed away 3 months after rectal lesion diagnosis. Although breast cancer metastasis to the rectum is rare, clinicians should consider the possibility of rectal involvement and perform a digital rectal examination if anal symptoms are present.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes and patient-surveyed scar assessments of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) with the outcomes of multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (MPLA). Methods: Between August 2014 and November 2017, the prospective randomized study comprised 98 patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis and indicated for surgery. Fifty-one patients had MPLA and 47 patients received SPLA. The primary endpoint was the total score of Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ) administered to patients 6 weeks after surgery. Results: SPLA involved a shorter median operative time than MPLA (47.5 minutes vs. 60.0 minutes, p = 0.02). There were no apparent differences in the time before diet tolerance, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication. SPLA patients had shorter total incision length (2.0 cm vs. 2.5 cm, p < 0.01) and required fewer analgesics on the day of surgery than MPLA patients (p = 0.011). The PSAQ favored the SPLA approach, revealing significant differences in total score (48 vs. 55, p = 0.026), appearance (15 vs. 18, p = 0.002), and consciousness (8 vs. 10, p = 0.005), while satisfaction with appearance and symptoms scale did not (p = 0.162 and p = 0.690, respectively). Conclusion The postoperative scar evaluated by the patient was better with SPLA than with MPLA, and patient satisfaction with the scar was comparable between the two techniques.