OBJECTIVE: Surgical site infection (SSI) is the one of the most frequent complications in hospitalized patients, and it extends hospital stays and causes extra morbidities. To reduce SSI after spine surgery, we applied the gentamicin-impregnated collagen sponge (Collatamp G) during the operation and analyzed the results retrospectively. METHODS: Between October 2012 and December 2015, we collected data who applied the Collatamp G in spine surgery at a single institution. Demographic data of patients and another possible risk factors of SSI were also included, and we assessed the correlation between the risk factors and the developing of SSI by reviewing electronic medical records retrospectively. RESULTS: Three percent of all patients (10 of 280) developed the SSI and only 0.8% of patients who applied Collatamp G developed SSI (1 of 119). Otherwise, 5% of patients who did not apply Collatamp G developed SSI (9 of 161) (p=0.034). We also analyzed the correlation between SSI and other potential risk factors but nothings showed statistical correlation with SSI. CONCLUSION: In this study, there were statistically significant results that SSI rate was decreased in the group of patients using Collatamp G in spine surgery generally. However, further studies are required to resolve some limitations in the future.
Collagen* ; Electronic Health Records ; Gentamicins ; Humans ; Length of Stay ; Porifera* ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Spine* ; Surgical Wound Infection*

Objective: To identify factors associated with swallowing recovery in patients with dysphagia after ischemic stroke. Methods: Patients admitted to Kangbuk Samsung Hospital from 2011 to 2019 for first acute ischemic stroke and dysphagia, as confirmed by a videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS), were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients whose Dysphagia Outcome and Severity Scale (DOSS) level was ＜6 as determined by VFSS were monitored in a dysphagia clinic and additional VFSS was performed periodically until one year after stroke. Follow-up was discontinued when the DOSS level reached 6 or 7. The main study outcomes were full recovery and tube removal rate. Cox regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors of dysphagia. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to generate curves of the proportions of patients that achieved full recovery. Results: One hundred and thirteen patients were enrolled. Multivariate analysis showed that only initial DOSS was significantly associated with swallowing recovery (13.0% for non-oral feeding vs. 35.6 % for a modified diet). Conclusion Initial swallowing status (as determined by VFSS findings) is strongly associated with swallowing recovery in post-ischemic stroke patients. Assessments of dysphagia are important for predicting dysphagia recovery and planning management strategies.

The sensitivity of the (1–3)-β-D-glucan (BDG) diagnostic test for candidemia varies in different clinical settings, and its usefulness in early diagnosis of candidemia is suboptimal. We evaluated the sensitivity of the test for early candidemia prediction. All adult patients with culture-proven candidemia who underwent a serum Goldstream Fungus (1–3)-β-D-Glucan Test within seven days prior to candidemia onset at a tertiary referral hospital between January 2017 and May 2021 were included. Any-positive BDG results within seven days prior to candidemia onset were obtained in 38 out of 93 (40.9%) patients. The positive rate increased when the test was performed near the day of candidemia onset (P=0.04) but reached only 52% on the day of candidemia onset. We observed no significant differences between BDG-positive and -negative groups in terms of underlying disease, risk factors for candidemia, clinical presentation, origin of candidemia, and 30-day mortality. Candida albicans was significantly associated with positive BDG results than with all-negative BDG results (P=0.04). The Goldstream BDG test is unreliable for candidemia prediction because of its low sensitivity. Negative BDG results in patients with a high risk of invasive candidiasis should be interpreted with caution.

Colonoscopy is a key procedure for the early detection of colorectal cancer. Despite its importance, the discomfort associated with colonoscopy often requires sedation, and the ideal sedation regimen remains to be determined. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned to two different sedation protocols. Group A received a combination of midazolam and propofol, while group B was given midazolam and pethidine. The study analyzed data from 51 patients, with 23 in group A and 28 in group B. The incidence of adverse events was similar across both groups. Additionally, no significant differences were observed in cecal intubation times or total procedure durations. Notably, group A had a lower frequency of required postural changes (1.0±0.7 vs. 1.5±0.7, p=0.02) and a reduced rate of manual compression (52.2% vs. 82.1%, p=0.02). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding subjective pain or overall satisfaction. Both sedation regimens were found to be safe and effective. The midazolam and propofol combination was associated with a smoother procedure, evidenced by fewer postural adjustments and less manual compression needed during colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy is a key procedure for the early detection of colorectal cancer. Despite its importance, the discomfort associated with colonoscopy often requires sedation, and the ideal sedation regimen remains to be determined. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned to two different sedation protocols. Group A received a combination of midazolam and propofol, while group B was given midazolam and pethidine. The study analyzed data from 51 patients, with 23 in group A and 28 in group B. The incidence of adverse events was similar across both groups. Additionally, no significant differences were observed in cecal intubation times or total procedure durations. Notably, group A had a lower frequency of required postural changes (1.0±0.7 vs. 1.5±0.7, p=0.02) and a reduced rate of manual compression (52.2% vs. 82.1%, p=0.02). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding subjective pain or overall satisfaction. Both sedation regimens were found to be safe and effective. The midazolam and propofol combination was associated with a smoother procedure, evidenced by fewer postural adjustments and less manual compression needed during colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy is a key procedure for the early detection of colorectal cancer. Despite its importance, the discomfort associated with colonoscopy often requires sedation, and the ideal sedation regimen remains to be determined. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned to two different sedation protocols. Group A received a combination of midazolam and propofol, while group B was given midazolam and pethidine. The study analyzed data from 51 patients, with 23 in group A and 28 in group B. The incidence of adverse events was similar across both groups. Additionally, no significant differences were observed in cecal intubation times or total procedure durations. Notably, group A had a lower frequency of required postural changes (1.0±0.7 vs. 1.5±0.7, p=0.02) and a reduced rate of manual compression (52.2% vs. 82.1%, p=0.02). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding subjective pain or overall satisfaction. Both sedation regimens were found to be safe and effective. The midazolam and propofol combination was associated with a smoother procedure, evidenced by fewer postural adjustments and less manual compression needed during colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy is a key procedure for the early detection of colorectal cancer. Despite its importance, the discomfort associated with colonoscopy often requires sedation, and the ideal sedation regimen remains to be determined. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned to two different sedation protocols. Group A received a combination of midazolam and propofol, while group B was given midazolam and pethidine. The study analyzed data from 51 patients, with 23 in group A and 28 in group B. The incidence of adverse events was similar across both groups. Additionally, no significant differences were observed in cecal intubation times or total procedure durations. Notably, group A had a lower frequency of required postural changes (1.0±0.7 vs. 1.5±0.7, p=0.02) and a reduced rate of manual compression (52.2% vs. 82.1%, p=0.02). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding subjective pain or overall satisfaction. Both sedation regimens were found to be safe and effective. The midazolam and propofol combination was associated with a smoother procedure, evidenced by fewer postural adjustments and less manual compression needed during colonoscopy.

Background: As the number of large-scale studies involving multiple organizations producing data has steadily increased, an integrated system for a common interoperable format is needed. In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a number of global efforts are underway to develop vaccines and therapeutics. We are therefore observing an explosion in the proliferation of COVID-19 data, and interoperability is highly requested in multiple institutions participating simultaneously in COVID-19 pandemic research. Results: In this study, a laboratory information management system (LIMS) approach has been adopted to systemically manage various COVID-19 non-clinical trial data, including mortality, clinical signs, body weight, body temperature, organ weights, viral titer (viral replication and viral RNA), and multiorgan histopathology, from multiple institutions based on a web interface. The main aim of the implemented system is to integrate, standardize, and organize data collected from laboratories in multiple institutes for COVID-19 non-clinical efficacy testings. Six animal biosafety level 3 institutions proved the feasibility of our system. Substantial benefits were shown by maximizing collaborative high-quality non-clinical research. Conclusions This LIMS platform can be used for future outbreaks, leading to accelerated medical product development through the systematic management of extensive data from non-clinical animal studies.