Sanghui Park

Dr. Sanghui Park


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

15Years (2012-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 August 2012 in Annals of Hematology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JHJunshik Hong
Junshik Hong
SPSanghui Park
Sanghui Park
JPJinny Park
Jinny Park
SJSeung Jun Jang
Seung Jun Jang
HAHee Kyung Ahn
Hee Kyung Ahn
JLJae Hoon Lee
Jae Hoon Lee

1 January 2018 in Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
YYYoungmin Youn
Youngmin Youn
SLSang-Won Lee
Sang-Won Lee
HCHyun-Hae Cho
Hyun-Hae Cho
SPSanghui Park
Sanghui Park
HCHae-Sun Chung
Hae-Sun Chung
JSJeong Wan Seo
Jeong Wan Seo
Youn Y, et al. Pediatr Gastroenterol Hepatol Nutr. 2018 Apr;21(2):141-146. https://doi.org/10.5223/pghn.2018.21.2.141

1 December 2013 in Annals of Diagnostic Pathology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SPSanghui Park
Sanghui Park
JRJae Y. Ro
Jae Y. Ro
DLDong Hyeon Lee
Dong Hyeon Lee
SCSun Young Choi
Sun Young Choi
HKHeasoo Koo
Heasoo Koo

20 October 2012
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JHJunshik Hong
Junshik Hong
SPSanghui Park
Sanghui Park
HBHae Lim Baek
Hae Lim Baek
JJJoo Hyun Jung
Joo Hyun Jung
IKIl Gyu Kang
Il Gyu Kang
JLJae Hoon Lee
Jae Hoon Lee

11 August 2014 in The Prostate
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
HPHeejung Park
Heejung Park
SPSanghui Park
Sanghui Park
KKKwang Hyun Kim
Kwang Hyun Kim
MCMin-Sun Cho
Min-Sun Cho
SSSun Hee Sung
Sun Hee Sung
Jae Y. RoJae Y. Ro
Jae Y. Ro

14 May 2024 in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MLMinah Lee
Minah Lee
JWJoohyun Woo
Joohyun Woo
SPSe Hyun Paek
Se Hyun Paek
HKHyun Goo Kim
Hyun Goo Kim
WLWoosung Lim
Woosung Lim
JLJun Woo Lee
Jun Woo Lee
Purpose: This single-center, randomized, prospective, exploratory clinical trial was conducted to assess the clinical efficacy of an augmented reality (AR)—based breast cancer localization imaging solution for patients with breast cancer. Methods: This clinical trial enrolled 20 women who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between the ages of 19 and 80, had a single lesion with a diameter ≥ 5 mm but ≤ 30 mm, had no metastases to other organs, and had not received prior chemotherapy. All patients underwent mammography, ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative assessment. Patients were randomly assigned to ultrasound-guided skin marking localization (USL) and AR-based localization (ARL) groups (n = 10 in each group). Statistical comparisons between USL and ARL groups were made based on demographics, radiologic features, pathological outcomes, and surgical outcomes using chi-square and Student t-tests. Results: Two surgeons performed breast-conserving surgery on 20 patients. Histopathologic evaluation of all patients confirmed negative margins. Two independent pathologists evaluated the marginal distances, and there were no intergroup differences in the readers' estimates (R1, 6.20 ± 4.37 vs. 5.04 ± 3.47, P = 0.519; R2, 5.10 ± 4.31 vs. 4.10 ± 2.38, P = 0.970) or the readers' average values (5.65 ± 4.19 vs. 4.57 ± 2.84, P = 0.509). In comparing the tumor plane area ratio, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of either reader's mean values (R1, 15.90 ± 9.52 vs. 19.38 ± 14.05, P = 0.525; R2, 15.32 ± 9.48 vs. 20.83 ± 12.85, P = 0.290) or the overall mean values of two readers combined (15.56 ± 9.11 vs. 20.09 ± 13.38, P = 0.388). Convenience, safety, satisfaction, and reusability were all superior in the AR localization group (P < 0.001) based on the two surgeons' responses. Conclusion: AR localization is an acceptable alternative to ultrasound-guided skin marking with no significant differences in surgical outcomes.