신우요관이행부 협착에서 보상성 사구체비후는 신주사상 Supranormal 분리신기능의 원인이 아니다

함원식,정현주,한상원 大韓泌尿器科學會 2003 Korean Journal of Urology Vol.44 No.1

밀폐형 소형냉동기

함원식 대한설비공학회 1973 설비저널 Vol.2 No.2

중국 흑룡강성의 쌀 생산 동향

함원식 농업협동조합중앙회 2004 농협조사월보 Vol.567 No.-

중국은 WTO가입에 따른 옥수수, 콩의 생산감소와 수입증가의 대체재로서 자포니카쌀에 주목하고 있다. 흑룡강성(黑龍江省)에서는 국유농장을 중심으로 수출을 염두에 둔 새로운 쌀전략이 전개되고 있다.

근치적 전립선적출술에서의 개복과 로봇 술식의 비교: 단일 술자 경험

함원식,박성열,조강수,이진선,최영득 대한비뇨의학회 2008 Investigative and Clinical Urology Vol.49 No.3

Purpose: To compare the results of open radical prostatectomy(OP) and robotic prostatectomy(RP) for a single surgeon's experience of 219 radical prostatectomy cases. Materials and Methods: Between June 2002 and June 2007, 133 patients underwent OP and between July 2005 and June 2007, 86 patients underwent RP. To compare the surgeon's experience-related differences, we divided the OP cases into 73 early cases(OP-I) and 60 late cases(OP-II), and the RP cases into 30 early cases(RP-I) and 56 late cases(RP-II). The clinical characteristics, perioperative results, and early clinical outcomes were evaluated. Results: There were no significant differences in the preoperative characteristics between the four groups. For the RP cases, the mean estimated blood loss was decreased, a normal diet was started earlier, the mean duration of hospital stay and the mean duration of bladder catheterization was shorter than for the OP cases. The frequency of intraoperative complications significantly decreased in the RP-II group as compared to the RP-I group. Although there was no significant statistical difference in the positive surgical margin rates between the four groups, the rates were slightly decreased in the RP-II group. The recovery period of continence was shorter in the RP-II group than in the OP group and for patients 60 years or older, recovery of potency was also better in the RP-II group than the OP group. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RP at the hands of an experienced surgeon may decrease the positive surgical margin rate to some degree. Additionally, performance of RP may lead to a shorter duration of bladder catheterization and hospital stay and a better recovery of continence and potency than obtainable by OP. (Korean J Urol 2008;49:221-226) Purpose: To compare the results of open radical prostatectomy(OP) and robotic prostatectomy(RP) for a single surgeon's experience of 219 radical prostatectomy cases. Materials and Methods: Between June 2002 and June 2007, 133 patients underwent OP and between July 2005 and June 2007, 86 patients underwent RP. To compare the surgeon's experience-related differences, we divided the OP cases into 73 early cases(OP-I) and 60 late cases(OP-II), and the RP cases into 30 early cases(RP-I) and 56 late cases(RP-II). The clinical characteristics, perioperative results, and early clinical outcomes were evaluated. Results: There were no significant differences in the preoperative characteristics between the four groups. For the RP cases, the mean estimated blood loss was decreased, a normal diet was started earlier, the mean duration of hospital stay and the mean duration of bladder catheterization was shorter than for the OP cases. The frequency of intraoperative complications significantly decreased in the RP-II group as compared to the RP-I group. Although there was no significant statistical difference in the positive surgical margin rates between the four groups, the rates were slightly decreased in the RP-II group. The recovery period of continence was shorter in the RP-II group than in the OP group and for patients 60 years or older, recovery of potency was also better in the RP-II group than the OP group. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RP at the hands of an experienced surgeon may decrease the positive surgical margin rate to some degree. Additionally, performance of RP may lead to a shorter duration of bladder catheterization and hospital stay and a better recovery of continence and potency than obtainable by OP. (Korean J Urol 2008;49:221-226)

Miles' 수술 상태에서의 로봇 전립선적출술

함원식,최영득,김상운 대한비뇨의학회 2008 Investigative and Clinical Urology Vol.49 No.5

Robotic prostatectomy(RP) has recently been added to the treatments for localized prostate cancer and it is increasingly being utilized at many centers. The benefits of minimally invasive surgery, the enhanced functional outcomes and the increased patient demand have led to the popularity of this surgical technique. However, RP has been reported to be technically challenging in patients with a history of prior complex lower abdominal/pelvic surgery, morbid obesity, a large prostate, prior pelvic irradiation, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy or prior prostate surgery. We report here on our experience of robotic prostatectomy (RP) in a prostate cancer patient with a Miles's operation and this pateint had undergone adjuvant chemotherapy and pelvic irradiation for rectal cancer. (Korean J Urol 2008;49:464-468)

신우요관이행부 협착에서 보상성 사구체비후는 신주사상 Supranormal 분리신기능의 원인이 아니다

함원식,정현주,한상원 대한비뇨의학회 2003 Investigative and Clinical Urology Vol.44 No.1

기업과의 비교를 통해 본 수직통합 이론과 농협

함원식 농업협동조합중앙회 2005 농협조사월보 Vol.572 No.-

임상적으로 진행된 전립선암에 대한 개복과 로봇 근치적 전립선적출술의 비교

함원식,박성열,나군호,최영득 대한비뇨의학회 2008 Investigative and Clinical Urology Vol.49 No.10

Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of robotic prostatectomy(RP) compared with open radical prostatectomy(OP) in clinically advanced prostate cancer(PC). Materials and Methods: Between January 2003 and June 2007 we performed radical prostatectomy in 180 patients with clinically advanced PC (OP, 88; RP, 92). We compared the perioperative parameters and early surgical outcomes between the OP and RP groups in patients with and without neoadjuvant hormonal therapy(NHT). Results: In patients without NHT, there were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics between the OP and RP groups, but in patients with NHT, the RP patients had higher biopsy Gleason scores(GS) and clinical stages. There were no significant differences in lymph node (LN) invasion and extracapsular extension(ECE), but a significant difference existed in the prostatectomy GS between the OP and RP groups, regardless of NHT. The positive surgical margin rates in the RP group were similar to or lower than in the OP groups when stratified by pathologic stages T2 and T3. Irrespective of NHT, in the RP group the mean estimated blood loss was decreased, the mean duration of the hospital stay was less, and the length of bladder catheterization was shorter, but there were no significant differences in the postoperative day the regular diet was started or the frequency of complications. Although there were no significant differences in continence rates between the two groups, all the RP patients had a higher continence rate from 1 month postoperatively, with or without NHT. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RP may be performed safely and may have results comparable to OP in clinically advanced PC. Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of robotic prostatectomy(RP) compared with open radical prostatectomy(OP) in clinically advanced prostate cancer(PC). Materials and Methods: Between January 2003 and June 2007 we performed radical prostatectomy in 180 patients with clinically advanced PC (OP, 88; RP, 92). We compared the perioperative parameters and early surgical outcomes between the OP and RP groups in patients with and without neoadjuvant hormonal therapy(NHT). Results: In patients without NHT, there were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics between the OP and RP groups, but in patients with NHT, the RP patients had higher biopsy Gleason scores(GS) and clinical stages. There were no significant differences in lymph node (LN) invasion and extracapsular extension(ECE), but a significant difference existed in the prostatectomy GS between the OP and RP groups, regardless of NHT. The positive surgical margin rates in the RP group were similar to or lower than in the OP groups when stratified by pathologic stages T2 and T3. Irrespective of NHT, in the RP group the mean estimated blood loss was decreased, the mean duration of the hospital stay was less, and the length of bladder catheterization was shorter, but there were no significant differences in the postoperative day the regular diet was started or the frequency of complications. Although there were no significant differences in continence rates between the two groups, all the RP patients had a higher continence rate from 1 month postoperatively, with or without NHT. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RP may be performed safely and may have results comparable to OP in clinically advanced PC.

방광암 환자에서 방광이행상피세포암과 정상 조직 간의 Human V-erbA Related EAR-3 유전자의 발현분석

함원식,이주형,유호송,최영득 대한비뇨의학회 2007 Investigative and Clinical Urology Vol.48 No.9

임상적으로 진행된 전립선암에서의 로봇 근치적 전립선적출술의 결과

함원식,박성열,나군호,최영득 대한비뇨의학회 2008 Investigative and Clinical Urology Vol.49 No.4

Purpose: Robotic prostatectomy(RP) has been widely performed for treating clinically localized prostate cancer(PC), whereas for treating clinically advanced PC, prostatectomy is usually done by open methods. We evaluated the outcomes of RP for treating patients with clinically advanced PC as compared with the outcomes of RP for treating patients with clinically localized PC. Materials and Methods: We performed RP in 273 patients with the da VinciⓇ robot system through a transperitoneal approach. Ninety-two patients had clinically advanced PC(Group I) and 181 patients had clinically localized PC(Group II). We compared the perioperative variables and early surgical outcomes between the two groups. Results: The two groups did not show significant differences for their mean age, but the mean preoperative prostate-specific antigen(PSA) levels and biopsy Gleason scores were significantly higher in Group I. There were no significant differences in the mean operation time(Group I: 214.9±45.1 min, II: 217.8±49.0 min, p=0.709), the estimated blood loss(Group I: 382.8± 281.5ml, II: 387.5±369.5ml, p=0.934), the duration of bladder catheterization (Group I: 12.0±2.8 days, II: 12.9±4.6 days, p=0.232), the hospital stay(Group I: 5.9±3.5 days, II: 5.0±2.4 days, p=0.154), and the time to start the postoperative regular diet(Group I: 2.5±1.5 days, II: 2.0±0.6 days, p=0.089) between the two groups. There was a significant difference in lymph node invasion(p<0.001), but no difference in the positive surgical margin(p= 0.180). Two out of the 4 intraoperative rectal injuries occurred in the clinically advanced PC group, but they were closed primarily without specific problems, except for 1 case. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RP may be performed safely for patients with clinically advanced PC. (Korean J Urol 2008;49:325-329) Purpose: Robotic prostatectomy(RP) has been widely performed for treating clinically localized prostate cancer(PC), whereas for treating clinically advanced PC, prostatectomy is usually done by open methods. We evaluated the outcomes of RP for treating patients with clinically advanced PC as compared with the outcomes of RP for treating patients with clinically localized PC. Materials and Methods: We performed RP in 273 patients with the da VinciⓇ robot system through a transperitoneal approach. Ninety-two patients had clinically advanced PC(Group I) and 181 patients had clinically localized PC(Group II). We compared the perioperative variables and early surgical outcomes between the two groups. Results: The two groups did not show significant differences for their mean age, but the mean preoperative prostate-specific antigen(PSA) levels and biopsy Gleason scores were significantly higher in Group I. There were no significant differences in the mean operation time(Group I: 214.9±45.1 min, II: 217.8±49.0 min, p=0.709), the estimated blood loss(Group I: 382.8± 281.5ml, II: 387.5±369.5ml, p=0.934), the duration of bladder catheterization (Group I: 12.0±2.8 days, II: 12.9±4.6 days, p=0.232), the hospital stay(Group I: 5.9±3.5 days, II: 5.0±2.4 days, p=0.154), and the time to start the postoperative regular diet(Group I: 2.5±1.5 days, II: 2.0±0.6 days, p=0.089) between the two groups. There was a significant difference in lymph node invasion(p<0.001), but no difference in the positive surgical margin(p= 0.180). Two out of the 4 intraoperative rectal injuries occurred in the clinically advanced PC group, but they were closed primarily without specific problems, except for 1 case. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RP may be performed safely for patients with clinically advanced PC. (Korean J Urol 2008;49:325-329)