Seung Ho Song

Seung Ho Song

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 January 2023 in Annals of Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JPJun Seok Park
Jun Seok Park
SLSung Min Lee
Sung Min Lee
GCGyu-Seog Choi
Gyu-Seog Choi
SPSoo Yeun Park
Soo Yeun Park
HKHye Jin Kim
Hye Jin Kim
KLKang Young Lee
Kang Young Lee
Objective: To evaluate whether robotic for middle or low rectal cancer produces an improvement in surgical outcomes compared with laparoscopic surgery in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Background: There is a lack of proven clinical benefit of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) compared with a laparoscopic approach in the setting of multicenter RCTs. Methods: Between July 2011 and February 2016, patients diagnosed with an adenocarcinoma located <10 cm from the anal verge and clinically rated T1-4aNxM0 were enrolled. The primary outcome was the completeness of TME assessed by a surgeon and a pathologist. Results: The RCT was terminated prematurely because of poor accrual of data. In all, 295 patients were assigned randomly to a robot-assisted TME group (151 in R-TME) or a laparoscopy-assisted TME group (144 in L-TME). The rates of complete TME were not different between groups (80.7% in R-TME, 77.1% in L-TME). Pathologic outcomes including the circumferential resection margin and the numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were not different between groups. In a subanalysis, the positive circumferential resection margin rate was lower in the R-TME group (0% vs 6.1% for L-TME; P=0.031). Among the recovery parameters, the length of opioid use was shorter in the R-TME group (P=0.028). There was no difference in the postoperative complication rate between the groups (12.0% for R-TME vs 8.3% for L-TME). Conclusions: In patients with middle or low rectal cancer, robotic-assisted surgery did not significantly improve the TME quality compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT01042743).

29 May 2021 in Techniques in Coloproctology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
HKH. J. Kim
H. J. Kim
GCGyu-Seog Choi
Gyu-Seog Choi
SSSeung Ho Song
Seung Ho Song
JPJ. S. Park
J. S. Park
SPS. Y. Park
S. Y. Park
JCJ. A. Choi
J. A. Choi

22 June 2021 in Techniques in Coloproctology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SSSeung Ho Song
Seung Ho Song
HKH. J. Kim
H. J. Kim
GCGyu-Seog Choi
Gyu-Seog Choi
JPJ. S. Park
J. S. Park
SPS. Y. Park
S. Y. Park
JCJ. A. Choi
J. A. Choi

1 January 2016 in Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SSSeung Ho Song
Seung Ho Song
SPSoo Yeun Park
Soo Yeun Park
JPJun Seok Park
Jun Seok Park
HKHye Jin Kim
Hye Jin Kim
CYChun-Seok Yang
Chun-Seok Yang
GCGyu-Seog Choi
Gyu-Seog Choi
Song SH, et al. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2016 Jan;90(1):29-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.4174/astr.2016.90.1.29

16 February 2021 in Techniques in Coloproctology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SSSeung Ho Song
Seung Ho Song
GCGyu-Seog Choi
Gyu-Seog Choi
HKH. J. Kim
H. J. Kim
JPJ. S. Park
J. S. Park
SPS. Y. Park
S. Y. Park
HSH. A. Seok
H. A. Seok

29 November 2023 in Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
HKHye Jin Kim
Hye Jin Kim
GCGyu-Seog Choi
Gyu-Seog Choi
JPJun Seok Park
Jun Seok Park
SPSoo Yeun Park
Soo Yeun Park
SSSeung Ho Song
Seung Ho Song
MJMin Hye Jeong
Min Hye Jeong