http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
신진용 대한대장항문학회 2012 Annals of Coloproctolgy Vol.28 No.1
Purpose: Although robotic surgery was invented to overcome the technical limitations of laparoscopic surgery, the role of a robotic (procto)colectomy (RC) for the treatment of colorectal cancer compared to that of a laparoscopic (procto)colectomy (LC) was not well defined during the initial adoption periods of both procedures. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of a RC for the treatment of colorectal cancer by comparing the authors’ initial experiences with both a RC and a LC. Methods: The first 30 patients treated by using a RC for colorectal cancer from July 2010 to March 2011 were compared with the first 30 patients treated by using a LC for colorectal cancer from December 2006 to June 2007 by the same surgeon. Perioperative variables and short-term outcomes were analyzed. In addition, the 30 RC and the 30 LC cases involved were divided into rectal cancer (n = 17 and n = 12, respectively), left-sided colon cancer (n = 7 and n = 12, respectively)and right-sided colon cancer (n = 6 and n = 6, respectively) for subgroup analyses. Results: The mean operating times for RC and LC were significantly different at 371.8 and 275.5 minutes, respectively, but other perioperative parameters (rates of open conversion, numbers of retrieved lymph node, estimated blood losses, times to first flatus, maximal pain scores before discharge and postoperative hospital stays) were not significantly different in the two groups. Subgroup analyses showed that the mean operative times for a robotic proctectomy and a laparoscopic proctectomy were 396.5 and 298.8 minutes, respectively (P < 0.000). Postoperative complications occurred in five patients in the RC group and in six patients in the LC group (P = 0.739). Conclusion: Although the short-term outcomes of a RC during its initial use were better than those of a LC (with the exception of operating time), differences were not found to be significantly different. On the other hand, the longer operation time of a robotic proctectomy compared to that of a laparoscopic proctectomy during the early period may be problematic. Purpose: Although robotic surgery was invented to overcome the technical limitations of laparoscopic surgery, the role of a robotic (procto)colectomy (RC) for the treatment of colorectal cancer compared to that of a laparoscopic (procto)colectomy (LC) was not well defined during the initial adoption periods of both procedures. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of a RC for the treatment of colorectal cancer by comparing the authors’ initial experiences with both a RC and a LC. Methods: The first 30 patients treated by using a RC for colorectal cancer from July 2010 to March 2011 were compared with the first 30 patients treated by using a LC for colorectal cancer from December 2006 to June 2007 by the same surgeon. Perioperative variables and short-term outcomes were analyzed. In addition, the 30 RC and the 30 LC cases involved were divided into rectal cancer (n = 17 and n = 12, respectively), left-sided colon cancer (n = 7 and n = 12, respectively)and right-sided colon cancer (n = 6 and n = 6, respectively) for subgroup analyses. Results: The mean operating times for RC and LC were significantly different at 371.8 and 275.5 minutes, respectively, but other perioperative parameters (rates of open conversion, numbers of retrieved lymph node, estimated blood losses, times to first flatus, maximal pain scores before discharge and postoperative hospital stays) were not significantly different in the two groups. Subgroup analyses showed that the mean operative times for a robotic proctectomy and a laparoscopic proctectomy were 396.5 and 298.8 minutes, respectively (P < 0.000). Postoperative complications occurred in five patients in the RC group and in six patients in the LC group (P = 0.739). Conclusion: Although the short-term outcomes of a RC during its initial use were better than those of a LC (with the exception of operating time), differences were not found to be significantly different. On the other hand, the longer operation time of a robotic proctectomy compared to that of a laparoscopic proctectomy during the early period may be problematic.
신진용,노시균,이내호,양경무 대한성형외과학회 2009 Archives of Plastic Surgery Vol.36 No.3
Purpose: Owing to the improvement of microscope, microsurgery implements, and microsuture, finger replantation has made a considerable development. With high success rate of microsurgery in children, positive results have been reported from distal amputation. We report the patients demographics, methods, and results of the microsurgery performed in children in our hospital for the last 8 years. Methods: From the medical records of 21 patients who had given the treatment in our hospital from January 2000 to December 2007, we analyzed patients’ sex, age, operative method, and complication retrospectively. Results: The number of male patients was twice as many as female, where most patients belong to the ages of five to ten years. Operative methods performed in this study included end-to-end anastomosis of artery and vein, vein graft, and epineurial suture. As a result, 19 out of 21 cases were successfully accomplished, and four of them went through the debridement of necrotic tissue due to the partial necrosis of the lesion. A one-year follow-up observation was made after surgery and most of them were almost fully recovered as in their previous state. Conclusion: The success rate of finger replantaion in children is continuously improving despite the difficulty of vessel anastomotic procedure, rehabilitation treatment and management after surgery. We report the satisfactory results of pediatric finger replantation technically and aesthetically.
신진용,노시균,이내호,양경무,Shin, Jin-Yong,Roh, Si-Gyun,Lee, Nae-Ho,Yang, Kyung-Moo 대한성형외과학회 2010 Archives of Plastic Surgery Vol.37 No.3
Purpose: An osteoma is one of the common benign tumors that penetrate the nasal portion, paranasal and frontal sinus. This tumor is mostly found by radiation test accidentally, however in rare cases; it can be found to be touched or with its symptoms as the tumor grows. We report this case since we found and healed the benign tumor which was affecting orbit and the both sides of fronal sinus. Methods: A 19 year old female patient visited to our hospital due to the mass on her forehead. The symptoms began 3 years ago but no special symptom was found except for touchable mass. She was diagnosed as the osteoma of superior orbital parts and both sides of frontal sinus using X-ray and CT scanning. The size of osteoma was $5{\times}2.5{\times}3.5\;cm$ and indicated the patterns penetrated to the right side of orbital region. The osteoma excision was conducted with coronal incision and wide area of defect part in frontal sinus and superior orbital part were reconstructed by cranial bone graft and resorbable fixation plates. Results: The patient recovered without any postoperative infections or complications and symptoms. Dysaesthesia was found on her frontal area but improved in 1 month after the surgery. Conclusion: The occurrences of osteoma in frontal sinus are rare and can be treated with conservative methods if there are no infections and symptoms. We report this case since we found the benign tumor, which was affecting orbit and the both sides of fronal sinus and healed it with coronal resectomy without any complications.