Background: Latency in transferring patients from intensive care units (ICUs) to general wards impedes the optimal allocation of ICU resources, underscoring the urgency of initiatives to reduce it. This study evaluates the extent of ICU transfer latency and assesses the potential benefits of minimizing it. Methods: Transfer latency was measured as the time between the first transfer request and the actual ICU discharge at a single-center tertiary hospital in 2021. Computer-based simulations and cost analyses were performed to examine how reducing transfer latency could affect average hourly ICU bed occupancy, the proportion of time ICU occupancy exceeds 80%, and hospital costs. The first analysis evaluated all ICU admissions, and the second analysis targeted a subset of ICU admissions with longer transfer latency, those requiring infectious precautions. Results: A total of 7,623 ICU admissions were analyzed, and the median transfer latency was 5.7 hours. Eliminating transfer latency for all ICU admissions would have resulted in a 32.8% point decrease in the proportion of time ICU occupancy exceeded 80%, and a potential annual savings of $6.18 million. Eliminating transfer latency for patients under infectious precautions would have decreased the time ICU occupancy exceeded 80% by 13.5% points, and reduced annual costs by a potential $1.26 million. Conclusions Transfer latency from ICUs to general wards might contribute to high ICU occupancy. Efforts to minimize latency for all admissions, or even for a subset of admissions with particularly long transfer latency, could enable more efficient use of ICU resources.

Purpose: This study investigated the impact of the guide hole height on the accuracy of implant placement using CAD/ CAM-fabricated surgical guides in resin models. The hypothesis is that decreasing the height of the guide hole reduces placement accuracy. Materials and Methods: Ten identical partially edentulous maxillary models were each fitted with surgical guides featuring guide hole heights of 1 mm, 3 mm, and/or 5 mm. Using a surgical guide and drill kit, implants were placed in six predetermined sites per model. Placement accuracy was evaluated by comparing the actual implant positions with the planned positions using digital scanning and computer software analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine the significance of deviations at both the coronal and apical positions. Results: The average deviations were 0.75±0.33 mm at the coronal position and 1.10±0.51 mm at the apical position. Placement accuracy didnot differ with different guide hole heights. Additionally, errors were consistent regardless of the guide hole height and were not influenced by the type of support or the implant placement site. Conclusion In this rotro study, varying the height of the guide hole did not significantly affect the accuracy of implant placement. The results suggest that guide hole height within the tested range does not have a substantial impact on placement errors. Our findings indicate that factors other than the guide holeheight may play a more critical role in implant placement accuracy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Purpose: This study investigated the impact of the guide hole height on the accuracy of implant placement using CAD/ CAM-fabricated surgical guides in resin models. The hypothesis is that decreasing the height of the guide hole reduces placement accuracy. Materials and Methods: Ten identical partially edentulous maxillary models were each fitted with surgical guides featuring guide hole heights of 1 mm, 3 mm, and/or 5 mm. Using a surgical guide and drill kit, implants were placed in six predetermined sites per model. Placement accuracy was evaluated by comparing the actual implant positions with the planned positions using digital scanning and computer software analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine the significance of deviations at both the coronal and apical positions. Results: The average deviations were 0.75±0.33 mm at the coronal position and 1.10±0.51 mm at the apical position. Placement accuracy didnot differ with different guide hole heights. Additionally, errors were consistent regardless of the guide hole height and were not influenced by the type of support or the implant placement site. Conclusion In this rotro study, varying the height of the guide hole did not significantly affect the accuracy of implant placement. The results suggest that guide hole height within the tested range does not have a substantial impact on placement errors. Our findings indicate that factors other than the guide holeheight may play a more critical role in implant placement accuracy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Purpose: This retrospective study compared the maxillary sinus floor augmentation techniques (lateral and transcrestal approaches) to assess the impact of bone grafting, graft materials, and initial residual bone height (RBH). Materials and Methods: Fifty patients who underwent maxillary sinus floor augmentation for posterior maxillary implant placement were included. Panoramic radiographs were obtained before surgery (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and 6-10 months post-surgery (T2). Length measurements on panoramic radiographs were performed using a digital caliper at T1 and T2. Statistical validation included one-way ANOVA, t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and correlation analyses. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess associations after adjusting for confounding factors. Results: Of the 50 patients, 35 underwent a transcrestal approach and 15 underwent a lateral approach. The results showed significant endosinus bone gain (ESBG) differences between allogeneic and xenogeneic grafts and no grafts (p < .001). Osteotomy sinus floor elevation without grafting yielded 3.24 ± 1.42 of ESBG. When divided into three groups based on initial RBH, RBH 1 had 27 patients, RBH 2 had 12 patients, and RBH 3 had 11 patients. Within the RBH group 1 (RBH under 4), the lateral approach had significantly greater ESBG than the transcrestal approach (p < .001). Multivariate linear regression analysis confirmed statistically significant associations between the studied variables after adjusting for confounding factors. Conclusion When the RBH is < 4 mm, lateral-approach sinus augmentation and bone grafting should be performed to attain significant ESBG. The RBH, bone graft materials, and sinus elevation techniques vary considerably in ESBG.

Background: Although silicone-based products are widely used for hypertrophic scar (HS) treatment, limited research exists on the correlation between patient compliance of silicone products and scar outcomes. This study aims to investigate whether continuous and consistent use of topical silicone gel (TSG) and silicone gel sheet (SGS) improves scar characteristics and whether patient compliance influences scar outcomes. Methods: A total of 79 patients with HS were randomized into either TSG (n=38) or SGS group (n=41) by an independent physician who had not seen the patients. Patient compliance was assessed based on application frequency and duration. Patients were divided into three subgroups according to compliance. Scar characteristics were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and patient self-assessment via a visual analogue scale (VAS) for 6 months. Results: VSS pigmentation and scar height worsened in patients who applied silicone products for less than 3 days per week, especially in the TSG group. Patients who applied silicone products for more than 4 days per week showed significant improvements in all factors. Patients reported improvements in VAS scar height, pigmentation, and hardness as application time increased. Pain and itching improved regardless of application time. Conclusion Continuous and consistent use of TSG and SGS improved HS outcomes. Applying silicone products more than 4 days in a week correlated with better scar characteristics, except pain and itching. Applying silicone products less than 3 days in a week is not recommended, as this may worsen scar height and pigmentation.

Purpose: This retrospective study compared the maxillary sinus floor augmentation techniques (lateral and transcrestal approaches) to assess the impact of bone grafting, graft materials, and initial residual bone height (RBH). Materials and Methods: Fifty patients who underwent maxillary sinus floor augmentation for posterior maxillary implant placement were included. Panoramic radiographs were obtained before surgery (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and 6-10 months post-surgery (T2). Length measurements on panoramic radiographs were performed using a digital caliper at T1 and T2. Statistical validation included one-way ANOVA, t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and correlation analyses. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess associations after adjusting for confounding factors. Results: Of the 50 patients, 35 underwent a transcrestal approach and 15 underwent a lateral approach. The results showed significant endosinus bone gain (ESBG) differences between allogeneic and xenogeneic grafts and no grafts (p < .001). Osteotomy sinus floor elevation without grafting yielded 3.24 ± 1.42 of ESBG. When divided into three groups based on initial RBH, RBH 1 had 27 patients, RBH 2 had 12 patients, and RBH 3 had 11 patients. Within the RBH group 1 (RBH under 4), the lateral approach had significantly greater ESBG than the transcrestal approach (p < .001). Multivariate linear regression analysis confirmed statistically significant associations between the studied variables after adjusting for confounding factors. Conclusion When the RBH is < 4 mm, lateral-approach sinus augmentation and bone grafting should be performed to attain significant ESBG. The RBH, bone graft materials, and sinus elevation techniques vary considerably in ESBG.

Purpose: This study investigated the impact of the guide hole height on the accuracy of implant placement using CAD/ CAM-fabricated surgical guides in resin models. The hypothesis is that decreasing the height of the guide hole reduces placement accuracy. Materials and Methods: Ten identical partially edentulous maxillary models were each fitted with surgical guides featuring guide hole heights of 1 mm, 3 mm, and/or 5 mm. Using a surgical guide and drill kit, implants were placed in six predetermined sites per model. Placement accuracy was evaluated by comparing the actual implant positions with the planned positions using digital scanning and computer software analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine the significance of deviations at both the coronal and apical positions. Results: The average deviations were 0.75±0.33 mm at the coronal position and 1.10±0.51 mm at the apical position. Placement accuracy didnot differ with different guide hole heights. Additionally, errors were consistent regardless of the guide hole height and were not influenced by the type of support or the implant placement site. Conclusion In this rotro study, varying the height of the guide hole did not significantly affect the accuracy of implant placement. The results suggest that guide hole height within the tested range does not have a substantial impact on placement errors. Our findings indicate that factors other than the guide holeheight may play a more critical role in implant placement accuracy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.