Background: Trauma remains a leading cause of death and disability. With the rapidly growing aging population, geriatric patients face heightened trauma risks due to physiological decline and comorbidities. Despite the growing burden, data on the clinical characteristics, injury mechanisms, patterns, and healthcare utilization in this group remain limited. This study analyzed trauma outcomes and associated factors in geriatric patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from a Level I trauma center. Patients aged ≥65 years were compared with younger adults (<65 years). Variables included demographics, injury mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), Injury Severity Score, clinical outcomes, and medical costs. Multivariate logistic regression identified mortality predictors. Results: Among 10,358 trauma patients with mean age of 54.2 years, 61.9% of younger patients were male, compared to 37.7% in the geriatric group (p<0.001). Geriatric patients exhibited lower male predominance, higher costs, and greater mortality (p<0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that, among geriatric groups, male sex, older age, lower GCS, lower RTS, burns injuries, and severe injuries (AIS ≥3) to head, thoracic, extremity, and appearance were significant mortality predictors. Undergoing orthopedic and thoracic surgeries was associated with lower mortality in geriatric patients. Conclusion Geriatric trauma patients experience higher mortality risks and demands. Timely interventions, critical care management, appropriate triage, and age-adapted assessment tools are essential for improving clinical outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of interdisciplinary care strategies to optimize geriatric trauma management and resource utilization.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted healthcare and worsened quality of life (QOL). Advanced esophageal cancer is often accompanied by malnutrition and poor QOL; chemoradiotherapy (CRT) remains the mainstay of treatment.We evaluated nutrition and QOL pre- and post-CRT immediately before and during the pandemic. Methods: Patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant or definitive CRT between April 2019 and December 2020 were enrolled. Disease severity, treatment timing, and outcomes were compared for cohorts treated pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19. Nutritional status was measured with the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA). QOL was measured with the Mandarin Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the esophageal site-specific module (QLQ-OES18). In the pandemic cohort, pre-/post-CRT paired analyses were performed. Results: Eighty-four patients were enrolled. The median diagnosis to treatment interval lengthened during COVID-19 (17.8 days vs. 24.2 days, p=0.04). Among the patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic, nutritional status improved significantly following CRT (p=0.003). In the EORTC QLQ-C30, post-CRT scores for global health status (p<0.01) and emotional functioning (p<0.01) showed significant improvement. Additionally, symptom scores, including fatigue (p=0.02) and nausea and vomiting (p=0.02), decreased. However, financial difficulties worsened after CRT (p=0.02). In the EORTC QLQ-OES18, post-CRT symptom scores for eating (p<0.01), reflux (p=0.03), and pain (p<0.01) showed significant improvement. Conclusion Despite COVID-19-related delays, CRT enhanced nutrition, global health, and symptom control in esophageal cancer, although financial burdens increased. Integrating socioeconomic support with oncologic care is vital during health crises.

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.

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.

Background: Health-care providers typically undergo shift work and are subjected to increased stress. Night shift work may induce disturbed sleep cycles and circadian rhythm. The objective of this study was to explore if night shift workers (NSWs) show an increased risk of abnormal thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 574 employees without thyroid disease and abnormal TSH at baseline who underwent annual check-ups between 2007 and 2016 in a medical center. NSWs were defined as those with working time schedules other than daytime hours. We calculated the incidence rate and estimated the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for incident abnormal TSH and subclinical hypothyroidism compared with non-NSWs using a Cox regression model. Results: A total of 56 incident abnormal TSH cases and 39 subclinical hypothyroidism cases in NSWs were identified during 3000 person-years of follow-up. In models adjusted for age, sex, obesity, and working departments, we found no increased relative risk for incident abnormal TSH (HR: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.33–1.60) or subclinical hypothyroidism (HR: 0.52, 95% confidence interval: 0.19–1.45) when comparing NSWs to non-NSWs; nor were incidence rates significantly different among exclusively medical employees after excluding administrative staff. Conclusion In this hospital-based nine-year follow-up retrospective cohort study, NSWs were not associated with increased relative risk of incident abnormal TSH and subclinical hypothyroidism, in contrast to previous cross-sectional studies.