Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Purpose: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation. Results: This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). Conclusions US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.

Background and Objectives: Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is highly recommended in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), participation in CR is low mainly due to access barriers. Home-based CR (HBCR) has been recommended to overcome access barriers.Exercise is a core component of CR and should be developed and implemented based on individual characteristics. We aimed to assess physical activity behaviors, exercise preferences, and exercise barriers to understand physical activity characteristics of CVD patients. Methods: Participants were patients between the ages 19 to 75 years with a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or myocardial infarction (MI). They completed a cross-sectional survey at a tertiary hospital's outpatient clinic from April to June 2021. Survey data included physical activity levels, patterns, preference, and barriers of exercise. Results: Participants (n=189; 143 males, 46 females, 62.1±12.0 years) were diagnosed as either HFrEF (n=160, 84.7%) or a history of MI (n=97, 51.3%). Only 26.5% of patients engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise for more than 150 minutes per week. Participants preferred exercising alone or with families. Walking (65.6%) and resistance exercises (35.4%) were favored, with outdoor (37%) and home-based (30.2%) settings preferred over fitness centers (10.6%) and hospitals (0.5%). Barriers to exercise included fatigue (34.4%), poor health perception (31.7%), and low fitness levels (30.7%). Conclusions The results of this study can be used to develop tailored HBCR programs that consider individual preferences and address specific barriers, facilitating adequate physical activity engagement.

Background and Objectives: Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is highly recommended in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), participation in CR is low mainly due to access barriers. Home-based CR (HBCR) has been recommended to overcome access barriers.Exercise is a core component of CR and should be developed and implemented based on individual characteristics. We aimed to assess physical activity behaviors, exercise preferences, and exercise barriers to understand physical activity characteristics of CVD patients. Methods: Participants were patients between the ages 19 to 75 years with a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or myocardial infarction (MI). They completed a cross-sectional survey at a tertiary hospital's outpatient clinic from April to June 2021. Survey data included physical activity levels, patterns, preference, and barriers of exercise. Results: Participants (n=189; 143 males, 46 females, 62.1±12.0 years) were diagnosed as either HFrEF (n=160, 84.7%) or a history of MI (n=97, 51.3%). Only 26.5% of patients engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise for more than 150 minutes per week. Participants preferred exercising alone or with families. Walking (65.6%) and resistance exercises (35.4%) were favored, with outdoor (37%) and home-based (30.2%) settings preferred over fitness centers (10.6%) and hospitals (0.5%). Barriers to exercise included fatigue (34.4%), poor health perception (31.7%), and low fitness levels (30.7%). Conclusions The results of this study can be used to develop tailored HBCR programs that consider individual preferences and address specific barriers, facilitating adequate physical activity engagement.

Background and Objectives: Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is highly recommended in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), participation in CR is low mainly due to access barriers. Home-based CR (HBCR) has been recommended to overcome access barriers.Exercise is a core component of CR and should be developed and implemented based on individual characteristics. We aimed to assess physical activity behaviors, exercise preferences, and exercise barriers to understand physical activity characteristics of CVD patients. Methods: Participants were patients between the ages 19 to 75 years with a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or myocardial infarction (MI). They completed a cross-sectional survey at a tertiary hospital's outpatient clinic from April to June 2021. Survey data included physical activity levels, patterns, preference, and barriers of exercise. Results: Participants (n=189; 143 males, 46 females, 62.1±12.0 years) were diagnosed as either HFrEF (n=160, 84.7%) or a history of MI (n=97, 51.3%). Only 26.5% of patients engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise for more than 150 minutes per week. Participants preferred exercising alone or with families. Walking (65.6%) and resistance exercises (35.4%) were favored, with outdoor (37%) and home-based (30.2%) settings preferred over fitness centers (10.6%) and hospitals (0.5%). Barriers to exercise included fatigue (34.4%), poor health perception (31.7%), and low fitness levels (30.7%). Conclusions The results of this study can be used to develop tailored HBCR programs that consider individual preferences and address specific barriers, facilitating adequate physical activity engagement.

Background and Objectives: Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is highly recommended in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), participation in CR is low mainly due to access barriers. Home-based CR (HBCR) has been recommended to overcome access barriers.Exercise is a core component of CR and should be developed and implemented based on individual characteristics. We aimed to assess physical activity behaviors, exercise preferences, and exercise barriers to understand physical activity characteristics of CVD patients. Methods: Participants were patients between the ages 19 to 75 years with a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or myocardial infarction (MI). They completed a cross-sectional survey at a tertiary hospital's outpatient clinic from April to June 2021. Survey data included physical activity levels, patterns, preference, and barriers of exercise. Results: Participants (n=189; 143 males, 46 females, 62.1±12.0 years) were diagnosed as either HFrEF (n=160, 84.7%) or a history of MI (n=97, 51.3%). Only 26.5% of patients engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise for more than 150 minutes per week. Participants preferred exercising alone or with families. Walking (65.6%) and resistance exercises (35.4%) were favored, with outdoor (37%) and home-based (30.2%) settings preferred over fitness centers (10.6%) and hospitals (0.5%). Barriers to exercise included fatigue (34.4%), poor health perception (31.7%), and low fitness levels (30.7%). Conclusions The results of this study can be used to develop tailored HBCR programs that consider individual preferences and address specific barriers, facilitating adequate physical activity engagement.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.