Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.

Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.

Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.

Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure that requires significant experiences and skills and has various procedure-related complications, some of which can be severe and even result in the death of patients. Expanding ERCP availability has the advantage of increasing accessibility for patients. However, ERCP poses a substantial risk if performed without proper quality management. ERCP quality management is essential for both ensuring safe and successful procedures and meeting the social demands for enhanced healthcare competitiveness and quality assurance. To address these concerns, the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association established a task force to develop ERCP quality indicators (QIs) tailored to the Korean medical environment. Key questions for five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, and four post-procedure measures were formulated based on a literature search related to ERCP QIs and a comprehensive clinical review conducted by experts. The statements and recommendations regarding each QI item were selected through peer review. The developed ERCP QIs were reviewed by external experts based on the latest available evidence at the time of development.These domestically tailored ERCP QIs are expected to contribute considerably to improving ERCP quality in Korea.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure that requires abundant clinical experience and endoscopic skills, and can lead to various complications, some of which may progress to life-threatening conditions. With expanding indications and technological advancements, ERCP is widely utilized, enhancing procedural accessibility. However, without proper quality management, the procedure can pose significant risks. Quality management in ERCP is essential to ensure safe and successful procedures and meet societal demands for improved healthcare competitiveness. To address these concerns, the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association has developed a Korean-specific ERCP quality indicator reflecting domestic medical environments and realities. Initially, based on a review of foreign ERCP quality indicators and related literatures, key questions were formulated for five preprocedural items, three intra-procedural items, and four post-procedural items. Descriptions and recommendations for each item were selected through peer evaluation. The developed Korean-specific ERCP quality indicator was reviewed by external experts based on the latest evidence and consensus in this fields. This Korean-specific indicator is expected to significantly contribute to improving ERCP quality in Korea, as it is tailored to local needs.

Background: Water electrospray technology has been developed and extensively studied for its physical properties and potential application as a non-chemical biocide against airborne pathogens. However, there are still concerns regarding the safety and potential toxicity of inhaling water electrospray (WE) particles. To address these potential hazards and offer insights into the impact of WE on humans, we analyzed the immunopathological response to WE by employing an intranasal challenge C57BL/6 mouse model. This analysis aimed to compare the effects of WE with those of sodium hypochlorite (SH), a well-known biocidal agent. Results: The study findings suggest that the WE did not trigger any pathological immune reactions in the intranasal-challenged C57BL/6 mouse model. Mice challenged with WE did not experience body weight loss, and there was no increase in inflammatory cytokine production compared to SH-treated mice. Histopathological analysis revealed that WE did not cause any damage to the lung tissue. In contrast, mice treated with SH exhibited significant lung tissue damage, characterized by the infiltration of neutrophils and eosinophils. Transcriptomic analysis of lung tissue further confirmed the absence of a pathological immune response in mice treated with WE compared to those treated with SH. Upon intranasal challenge with WE, the C57BL/6 mouse model did not show any evidence of immunopathological damage. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that WE is a safe technology for disinfecting airborne pathogens. It demonstrated little to no effect on immune system activation and pathological outcomes in the intranasal challenge C57BL/6 mouse model. These findings not only support the potential use of WE as an effective and safe method for air disinfection but also highlight the value of the intranasal challenge of the C57BL/6 mouse model in providing significant immunopathological insights for assessing the inhalation of novel materials for potential use.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure that requires abundant clinical experience and endoscopic skills, and can lead to various complications, some of which may progress to life-threatening conditions. With expanding indications and technological advancements, ERCP is widely utilized, enhancing procedural accessibility. However, without proper quality management, the procedure can pose significant risks. Quality management in ERCP is essential to ensure safe and successful procedures and meet societal demands for improved healthcare competitiveness. To address these concerns, the Korean Society of Pancreatobiliary Endoscopy has developed a Korean-specific ERCP quality indicator reflecting domestic medical environments and realities. Initially, based on a review of foreign ERCP quality indicators and related literatures, key questions were formulated for five pre-procedural items, three intra-procedural items, and four post-procedural items. Descriptions and recommendations for each item were selected through peer evaluation. The developed Korean-specific ERCP quality indicator was reviewed by external experts based on the latest evidence and consensus in this fields. This Korean-specific indicator is expected to significantly contribute to improving ERCP quality in Korea, as it is tailored to local needs.

Background/Aims: Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are widely used for tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid mass, the optimal strategy of this procedure has not been established yet. The aim of this nationwide study was to investigate the current practice patterns of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass in Korea. Methods: The Policy-Quality Management of the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association (KPBA) developed a questionnaire containing 22 questions. An electronic survey consisting of the questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to members registered to the KPBA. Results: A total of 101 respondents completed the survey. Eighty respondents (79.2%) performed preoperative EUS-FNA/FNB for operable pancreatic solid mass. Acquire needles (60.4%) were used the most, followed by ProCore needles (47.5%). In terms of need size, most respondents (>80%) preferred 22-gauge needles regardless of the location of the mass. Negative suction with a 10-mL syringe (71.3%) as sampling technique was followed by stylet slow-pull (41.6%). More than three needle passes for EUS-FNA/FNB was performed by most respondents (>80%). The frequency of requiring repeated procedure was significantly higher in respondents with a low individual volume (<5 per month, p=0.001). Prophylactic antibiotics were routinely used in 39 respondents (38.6%); rapid on-site pathologic evaluation was used in 6.1%. Conclusions According to this survey, practices of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass varied substantially, some of which differed considerably from the recommendations present in existing guidelines. These results suggest that the development of evidence-based quality guidelines fitting Korean clinical practice is needed to establish the optimal strategy for this procedure.

Purpose: Outcome analysis of urachal cancer (UraC) is limited due to the scarcity of cases and different staging methods compared to urothelial bladder cancer (UroBC). We attempted to assess survival outcomes of UraC and compare to UroBC after stage-matched analyses. Materials and Methods: Total 203 UraC patients from a multicenter database and 373 UroBC patients in single institution from 2000 to 2018 were enrolled (median follow-up, 32 months). Sheldon stage conversion to corresponding TNM staging for UraC was conducted for head-to-head comparison to UroBC. Perioperative clinical variables and pathological results were recorded. Stage-matched analyses for survival by stage were conducted. Results: UraC patients were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001), with 163 patients (80.3%) receiving partial cystectomy and 23 patients (11.3%) radical cystectomy. UraC was more likely to harbor ≥ pT3a tumors (78.8% vs. 41.8%). While 5-year recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival were comparable between two groups (63.4%, 67%, and 62.1% in UraC and 61.5%, 75.9%, and 67.8% in UroBC, respectively), generally favorable prognosis for UraC in lower stages (pT1-2) but unfavorable outcomes in higher stages (pT4) compared to UroBC was observed, although only 5-year CSS in ≥ pT4 showed statistical significance (p=0.028). Body mass index (hazard ratio [HR], 0.929), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.921), pathologic T category (HR, 3.846), and lymphovascular invasion (HR, 1.993) were predictors of CSS for all patients. Conclusion Despite differing histology, UraC has comparable prognosis to UroBC with relatively favorable outcome in low stages but worse prognosis in higher stages. The presented system may be useful for future grading and risk stratification of UraC.