Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract and is characterized by alternating periods of inflammation and remission. Although UC incidence is lower in Taiwan than in Western countries, its impact remains considerable, demanding updated guidelines for addressing local healthcare challenges and patient needs. The revised guidelines employ international standards and recent research, emphasizing practical implementation within the Taiwanese healthcare system. Since the inception of the guidelines in 2017, the Taiwan Society of Inflammatory Bowel Disease has acknowledged the need for ongoing revisions to incorporate emerging therapeutic options and evolving disease management practices. This updated guideline aims to align UC management with local contexts, ensuring comprehensive and context-specific recommendations, thereby raising the standard of care for UC patients in Taiwan. By adapting and optimizing international protocols for local relevance, these efforts seek to enhance health outcomes for patients with UC.

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic, fluctuating inflammatory condition that primarily affects the gastrointestinal tract. Although the incidence of CD in Taiwan is lower than that in Western countries, the severity of CD presentation appears to be similar between Asia and the West. This observation indicates the urgency for devising revised guidelines tailored to the unique reimbursement system, and patient requirements in Taiwan. The core objectives of these updated guidelines include the updated treatment choices and the integration of the treat-to-target strategy into CD management, promoting the achievement of deep remission to mitigate complications and enhance the overall quality of life. Given the diversity in disease prevalence, severity, insurance policies, and access to medical treatments in Taiwan, a customized approach is imperative for formulating these guidelines. Such tailored strategies ensure that international standards are not only adapted but also optimized to local contexts. Since the inception of its initial guidelines in 2017, the Taiwan Society of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (TSIBD) has acknowledged the importance of continuous revisions for incorporating new therapeutic options and evolving disease management practices. The latest update leverages international standards and recent research findings focused on practical implementation within the Taiwanese healthcare system.

Background/Aims: The core needle biopsy (CNB), fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) and touch imprint cytology (TIC) are commonly used tools for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies. However, little is known about the benefits and criteria for selecting appropriate technique among them in clinical practice. We aimed to compare the sensitivity of ultrasound-guided CNB, FNAC, TIC as well as combinations for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies, and to determine the factors associated with better sensitivity in each technique. Methods: From January 2018 to December 2019, a total of 634 consecutive patients who received ultrasound-guided liver biopsies at the National Taiwan University Hospital was collected, of whom 235 with confirmed malignant hepatic lesions receiving CNB, FNAC and TIC simultaneously were enrolled for analysis. The clinical and procedural data were compared. Results: The sensitivity of CNB, FNAC and TIC for the diagnosis of malignant hepatic lesions were 93.6%, 71.9%, and 85.1%, respectively. Add-on use of FNAC or TIC to CNB provided additional sensitivity of 2.1% and 0.4%, respectively. FNAC exhibited a significantly higher diagnostic rate in the metastatic cancers (P=0.011), hyperechoic lesions on ultrasound (P=0.028), and those with depth less than 4.5 cm from the site of needle insertion (P=0.036). Conclusions The sensitivity of CNB is superior to that of FNAC and TIC for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies. Nevertheless, for shallow (depth <4.5 cm) and hyperechoic lesions not typical for primary liver cancers, FNAC alone provides excellent sensitivity.

Background/Aims: The core needle biopsy (CNB), fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) and touch imprint cytology (TIC) are commonly used tools for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies. However, little is known about the benefits and criteria for selecting appropriate technique among them in clinical practice. We aimed to compare the sensitivity of ultrasound-guided CNB, FNAC, TIC as well as combinations for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies, and to determine the factors associated with better sensitivity in each technique. Methods: From January 2018 to December 2019, a total of 634 consecutive patients who received ultrasound-guided liver biopsies at the National Taiwan University Hospital was collected, of whom 235 with confirmed malignant hepatic lesions receiving CNB, FNAC and TIC simultaneously were enrolled for analysis. The clinical and procedural data were compared. Results: The sensitivity of CNB, FNAC and TIC for the diagnosis of malignant hepatic lesions were 93.6%, 71.9%, and 85.1%, respectively. Add-on use of FNAC or TIC to CNB provided additional sensitivity of 2.1% and 0.4%, respectively. FNAC exhibited a significantly higher diagnostic rate in the metastatic cancers (P=0.011), hyperechoic lesions on ultrasound (P=0.028), and those with depth less than 4.5 cm from the site of needle insertion (P=0.036). Conclusions The sensitivity of CNB is superior to that of FNAC and TIC for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies. Nevertheless, for shallow (depth <4.5 cm) and hyperechoic lesions not typical for primary liver cancers, FNAC alone provides excellent sensitivity.

Arm ; Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Bias (Epidemiology) ; Carboplatin ; Disease-Free Survival ; Doxorubicin ; Drug Therapy ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Maintenance Chemotherapy ; Ovarian Neoplasms ; Prognosis ; Quality of Life ; Recombination, Genetic ; Sample Size