The administration of high-dose vitamins has been focused on in critically ill patients as adjunctive therapy for life-threatening conditions. We evaluated the association between serum vitamin C concentrations and patient prognosis. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed and collected clinical and biochemical data, including thiamine and vitamin C levels, of patients admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Results: In total, 177 patients were admitted to the PICU during the study period, and 63 children were enrolled in this study. The most common reason for PICU admission was sepsis (33.3%). The median thiamine and vitamin C levels were 3.6 µg/dl (interquartile range [IQR], 2.9–4.5 µg/dl) and 2.84 µg/ml (IQR, 1.61–4.55 µg/ml), respectively. Thiamine deficiency was observed in 10 patients (15.9%), and 17 (27.0%) had vitamin C deficiency. There were no differences in the vitamin levels according to the reason for PICU admission. Vitamin C levels were affected by nutritional status. The length of stay in the PICU and duration of mechanical ventilation were longer in patients with vitamin C deficiency than in those without (P=0.035 and P=0.010, respectively). The serum delta neutrophil index and C-reactive protein and lactate levels increased in the vitamin C-deficient group (P=0.028 and P=0.039, respectively). There was a significant difference in Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 scores according to vitamin C levels but not in mortality directly. Conclusions: Vitamin C deficiency was associated with elevated inflammatory marker levels, increased mechanical ventilation durations, and PICU admission. Our results support the potential benefits of vitamin C administration in critically ill children.

The applicability of the Phoenix criteria and Phoenix Sepsis Score in higher-resource pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) outside the United States requires further validation. A retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic health records of 1,304 PICU admissions under 18 years old with suspected infection between February 2017 and December 2023. The score was calculated using two methods: 24-hour assessment, based on worst sub-scores within 24 hours of admission, and prompt assessment, using values closest to admission within 6 hours before or after. Based on the 24-hour assessment, in-hospital mortality was 8.3% for sepsis and 10.3% for septic shock. The score demonstrated an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.42 (95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.55) for in-hospital mortality. Results were consistent across both assessment methods. The Phoenix criteria and the Phoenix Sepsis Score are reliable predictors of mortality outcomes. Further investigation in diverse clinical settings is warranted.

The applicability of the Phoenix criteria and Phoenix Sepsis Score in higher-resource pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) outside the United States requires further validation. A retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic health records of 1,304 PICU admissions under 18 years old with suspected infection between February 2017 and December 2023. The score was calculated using two methods: 24-hour assessment, based on worst sub-scores within 24 hours of admission, and prompt assessment, using values closest to admission within 6 hours before or after. Based on the 24-hour assessment, in-hospital mortality was 8.3% for sepsis and 10.3% for septic shock. The score demonstrated an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.42 (95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.55) for in-hospital mortality. Results were consistent across both assessment methods. The Phoenix criteria and the Phoenix Sepsis Score are reliable predictors of mortality outcomes. Further investigation in diverse clinical settings is warranted.

The applicability of the Phoenix criteria and Phoenix Sepsis Score in higher-resource pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) outside the United States requires further validation. A retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic health records of 1,304 PICU admissions under 18 years old with suspected infection between February 2017 and December 2023. The score was calculated using two methods: 24-hour assessment, based on worst sub-scores within 24 hours of admission, and prompt assessment, using values closest to admission within 6 hours before or after. Based on the 24-hour assessment, in-hospital mortality was 8.3% for sepsis and 10.3% for septic shock. The score demonstrated an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.42 (95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.55) for in-hospital mortality. Results were consistent across both assessment methods. The Phoenix criteria and the Phoenix Sepsis Score are reliable predictors of mortality outcomes. Further investigation in diverse clinical settings is warranted.

The applicability of the Phoenix criteria and Phoenix Sepsis Score in higher-resource pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) outside the United States requires further validation. A retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic health records of 1,304 PICU admissions under 18 years old with suspected infection between February 2017 and December 2023. The score was calculated using two methods: 24-hour assessment, based on worst sub-scores within 24 hours of admission, and prompt assessment, using values closest to admission within 6 hours before or after. Based on the 24-hour assessment, in-hospital mortality was 8.3% for sepsis and 10.3% for septic shock. The score demonstrated an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.42 (95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.55) for in-hospital mortality. Results were consistent across both assessment methods. The Phoenix criteria and the Phoenix Sepsis Score are reliable predictors of mortality outcomes. Further investigation in diverse clinical settings is warranted.

Purpose: To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training. Methods: ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined. Results: The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee’s ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees’ ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606). Conclusion In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.

Purpose: To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training. Methods: ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined. Results: The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee’s ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees’ ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606). Conclusion In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.

Purpose: To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training. Methods: ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined. Results: The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee’s ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees’ ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606). Conclusion In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes based on the ligation level of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) in patients with rectal cancer. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database that included all patients who underwent elective low anterior resection for rectal cancer between January 2013 and December 2019. The clinical outcomes included oncological outcomes, postoperative complications, and functional outcomes. The oncological outcomes included overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). The functional outcomes, including defecatory and urogenital functions, were analyzed using the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, International Prostate Symptom Score, and International Index of Erectile Function questionnaires. Results: In total, 545 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 244 patients underwent high ligation (HL), whereas 301 underwent low ligation (LL). The tumor size was larger in the HL group than in the LL group. The number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs) was higher in the HL group than in the LL group. There were no significant differences in complication rates and recurrence patterns between the groups. There were no significant differences in 5-year RFS and OS between the groups. Cox regression analysis revealed that the ligation level (HL vs. LL) was not a significant risk factor for oncological outcomes. Regarding functional outcomes, the LL group showed a significant recovery in defecatory function 1 year postoperatively compared with the HL group. Conclusion LL with LNs dissection around the root of the IMA might not affect the oncologic outcomes comparing to HL; however, it has minimal benefit for defecatory function.

Purpose: Whether to perform surgery or conservatively manage appendicitis in immunosuppressed patients is a concern for clinicians. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of these 2 treatment options for appendicitis in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Methods: This retrospective study included 206 patients with cancer who were diagnosed with acute appendicitis between August 2001 and December 2021. Among them, patients who received chemotherapy within 1 month were divided into surgical and conservative groups. We evaluated the outcomes, including treatment success within 1 year, 1-year recurrence, and the number of days from the diagnosis of appendicitis to chemotherapy restart, between the 2 groups. Results: Among the 206 patients with cancer who were diagnosed with acute appendicitis, 78 received chemotherapy within 1 month. The patients were divided into surgery (n = 63) and conservative (n = 15) groups. In the surgery group, the duration of antibiotic therapy (7.0 days vs. 16.0 days, P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (8.0 days vs. 27.5 days, P = 0.002) were significantly shorter than conservative groups. The duration from the diagnosis of appendicitis to the restart of chemotherapy was shorter in the surgery group (20.8 ± 15.1 days vs. 35.2 ± 28.2 days, P = 0.028). The treatment success rate within 1 year was higher in the surgery group (100% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.001). Conclusion Surgical treatment showed a significantly higher success rate than conservative treatment for appendicitis in patients less than 1 month after chemotherapy. Further prospective studies will be needed to clinically determine treatment options.