Objectives: . Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is a significant cause of hearing loss. Intratympanic steroid injection (ITSI) is commonly used as an initial or salvage treatment; however, the lack of a standardized treatment protocol has resulted in variability in clinical practice. In addition, no efficient prediction model currently exists to support personalized management. Therefore, this study aimed to develop tailored management strategies for ISSNHL using a machine-learning model. Methods: . This retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted between January 2015 and December 2020, with data analysis performed between January 2021 and March 2024. Patients were selected based on the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision criteria for ISSNHL, along with relevant medication and procedure codes. Patients with pure-tone audiogram results not meeting ISSNHL criteria, better initial hearing in the affected ear, an identifiable etiology, no post-treatment audiogram, or delayed treatment (>6 weeks) were excluded. We included 770 patients diagnosed with ISSNHL who received ITSI. The primary outcome was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for prediction performance. Recovery status was determined using the last pure-tone audiogram. Modeling was conducted on the Quanta for Medical Care AI platform using five machine-learning algorithms and a nested cross-validation framework, in which feature selection and hyperparameter tuning were performed in the inner folds and model performance was evaluated in the outer folds. Results: . A random forest classifier outperformed the other models in predicting hearing outcomes, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.788. Time to ITSI was the most influential treatment-related factor, with ITSI administered within 10 days of hearing loss being associated with better outcomes. This model can be used to provide personalized prognostic estimates under different treatment protocols. Conclusion . The machine-learning-based prediction model facilitates personalized treatment strategies and timely treatment adjustments for ISSNHL, thereby optimizing the likelihood of complete recovery.

Background/Aims: Activation of the cold receptor, transient receptor potential melastatin 8 (TRPM8) by menthol inhibits esophageal secondary peristalsis in healthy adults. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is common. This study is to evaluate the effects of acute infusion of menthol on esophageal peristalsis in patients with IEM. Methods: Twenty patients with IEM (males 11, mean age 36) were studied for esophageal peristalsis using high-resolution manometry. All participant had primary peristalsis performed with 10 water swallows and secondary peristalsis generated with 10 rapid air injections of 20 mL via mid-esophageal infusion port. Two different sessions by randomly performing acute administration of placebo or menthol (3 mM) were used for testing their effects on esophageal peristalsis. Results: Menthol infusion had no effects on distal contractile integral (P = 0.471), distal latency (P = 0.58), or complete peristalsis (P = 0.251). Menthol infusion did not change basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.321), esophagogastric junction contractile integral (P = 0.758), or integrated relaxation pressure (P = 0.375) of primary peristalsis, but reduced upper esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.037). Infusion of menthol significantly reduced the frequency of secondary peristalsis for air injects of 20 mL (P = 0.002), but did not affect distal contractile integral of secondary peristalsis for air injections of 20 mL. Conclusion This work has suggested that activation of TRPM8 by menthol can attenuate mechanosensitivity of secondary peristalsis in response to rapid air distension regardless of the presence of IEM.

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/Aims: Activation of the cold receptor, transient receptor potential melastatin 8 (TRPM8) by menthol inhibits esophageal secondary peristalsis in healthy adults. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is common. This study is to evaluate the effects of acute infusion of menthol on esophageal peristalsis in patients with IEM. Methods: Twenty patients with IEM (males 11, mean age 36) were studied for esophageal peristalsis using high-resolution manometry. All participant had primary peristalsis performed with 10 water swallows and secondary peristalsis generated with 10 rapid air injections of 20 mL via mid-esophageal infusion port. Two different sessions by randomly performing acute administration of placebo or menthol (3 mM) were used for testing their effects on esophageal peristalsis. Results: Menthol infusion had no effects on distal contractile integral (P = 0.471), distal latency (P = 0.58), or complete peristalsis (P = 0.251). Menthol infusion did not change basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.321), esophagogastric junction contractile integral (P = 0.758), or integrated relaxation pressure (P = 0.375) of primary peristalsis, but reduced upper esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.037). Infusion of menthol significantly reduced the frequency of secondary peristalsis for air injects of 20 mL (P = 0.002), but did not affect distal contractile integral of secondary peristalsis for air injections of 20 mL. Conclusion This work has suggested that activation of TRPM8 by menthol can attenuate mechanosensitivity of secondary peristalsis in response to rapid air distension regardless of the presence of IEM.

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/Aims: Activation of the cold receptor, transient receptor potential melastatin 8 (TRPM8) by menthol inhibits esophageal secondary peristalsis in healthy adults. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is common. This study is to evaluate the effects of acute infusion of menthol on esophageal peristalsis in patients with IEM. Methods: Twenty patients with IEM (males 11, mean age 36) were studied for esophageal peristalsis using high-resolution manometry. All participant had primary peristalsis performed with 10 water swallows and secondary peristalsis generated with 10 rapid air injections of 20 mL via mid-esophageal infusion port. Two different sessions by randomly performing acute administration of placebo or menthol (3 mM) were used for testing their effects on esophageal peristalsis. Results: Menthol infusion had no effects on distal contractile integral (P = 0.471), distal latency (P = 0.58), or complete peristalsis (P = 0.251). Menthol infusion did not change basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.321), esophagogastric junction contractile integral (P = 0.758), or integrated relaxation pressure (P = 0.375) of primary peristalsis, but reduced upper esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.037). Infusion of menthol significantly reduced the frequency of secondary peristalsis for air injects of 20 mL (P = 0.002), but did not affect distal contractile integral of secondary peristalsis for air injections of 20 mL. Conclusion This work has suggested that activation of TRPM8 by menthol can attenuate mechanosensitivity of secondary peristalsis in response to rapid air distension regardless of the presence of IEM.

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/Aims: Finite nucleos(t)ide analog (NA) therapy has been proposed as an alternative treatment strategy for chronic hepatitis B (CHB), but biomarkers for post-treatment monitoring are limited. We investigated whether measuring hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) after NA cessation may stratify the risk of subsequent clinical relapse (CR). Methods: This retrospective multicenter analysis enrolled adults with CHB who were prospectively monitored after discontinuing entecavir or tenofovir with negative HBeAg and undetectable HBV DNA at the end of treatment (EOT). Patients with cirrhosis or malignancy were excluded. CR was defined as serum alanine aminotransferase > two times the upper limit of normal with recurrent viremia. We applied time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models to clarify the association between HBcrAg levels and subsequent CR. Results: The cohort included 203 patients (median age, 49.8 years; 76.8% male; 60.6% entecavir) who had been treated for a median of 36.9 months (interquartile range [IQR], 36.5–40.1). During a median post-treatment follow-up of 31.7 months (IQR, 16.7–67.1), CR occurred in 104 patients with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 54.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.1–62.4%). Time-varying HBcrAg level was a significant risk factor for subsequent CR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.53 per log U/mL; 95% CI, 1.12–2.08) with adjustment for EOT HBsAg, EOT anti-HBe, EOT HBcrAg and time-varying HBsAg. During follow-up, HBcrAg <1,000 U/mL predicted a lower risk of CR (aHR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21–0.81). Conclusions Dynamic measurement of HBcrAg after NA cessation is predictive of subsequent CR and may be useful to guide post-treatment monitoring.