Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed. Results: Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240). Conclusions This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed. Results: Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240). Conclusions This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed. Results: Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240). Conclusions This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusions: We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusions: We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusions: We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusions: We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Purpose: Bariatric surgery is the gold standard for the treatment of morbid obesity, but postoperative pain impedes recovery. Currently available pain-recovery treatments have patient safety concerns. This led to a noninferiority study of Welpass (Genewel Co., Ltd.) vs. On-Q PainBuster (B. Braun), each used alongside a traditional method of continuous local anesthetic administration, in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Methods: In this single-center prospective randomized clinical trial, patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the treatment group (Welpass) and the control group (On-Q PainBuster), with ketorolac administered as needed after surgery according to the protocol. To assess efficacy, the total amount of ketorolac used up to 72 hours postoperatively was measured.Additionally, ketorolac usage and numerical rating scales (NRS) were recorded at 6, 24, 48, and 72 hours after operation. Results: The total amounts of ketorolac used in the 72 hours postoperatively were 188.0 ± 84.6 mg in the treatment group and 198.7 ± 50.0 mg in the control group. The efficacy of the treatment group was noninferior to that of the control group, since the lower limit (–29.9 mg) of the confidence interval for the difference with the control group was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin (–35.0 mg). Furthermore, when the NRS was evaluated after bariatric surgery, there was no significant difference in scores between the 2 groups at each time point (P > 0.05). Conclusion We found no difference in effect on pain between the 2 groups, supporting the use of Welpass in clinical practice for pain management in patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Purpose: Since 2020, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Ate/Bev) has been the standard first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but long-term treatment studies are limited. This study evaluated the clinical characteristics and effects of Ate/Bev for over 1 year. Materials and Methods: This study included patients with unresectable HCC treated with first-line Ate/Bev between May 2020 and April 2022. Those receiving Ate/Bev for 1 year or more were classified as the long-term treatment group. Results: Of 246 patients, 69 (28.0%) were in the long-term treatment group, which comprised more proportions of intrahepatic tumor burden < 25%, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0, and a lower proportion of portal vein tumor thrombosis than the short-term treatment group. The long-term treatment group had a higher incidence of atezolizumab-related thyroid dysfunction (31.9% vs. 10.7%, p < 0.001; median time to onset [mTTO], 2.8 months), dermatologic toxicity (29.0% vs. 14.7%, p=0.017; mTTO, 3.3 months), bevacizumab-related hypertension (44.9% vs. 22.0%, p=0.001; mTTO, 4.2 months), and proteinuria (69.6% vs. 38.4%, p < 0.001; mTTO, 6.8 months), compared to the short-term treatment group. Regarding liver function in the long-term treatment group, patients initially classified as Child-Pugh class A decreased from 87.0% to 75.4%, and albumin-bilirubin grade 1 decreased from 68.1% to 50.7% after 1 year of treatment. Conclusion The Ate/Bev long-term treatment group had a lower intrahepatic tumor burden, less portal vein tumor thrombosis, and better performance status and liver function at baseline. Atezolizumab-related immunological adverse events emerged relatively early in treatment compared to the bevacizumab-related. Additionally, some patients demonstrated liver function deterioration during long-term Ate/Bev treatment.

Purpose: Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) presents a major challenge in the treatment of latestage, solid tumors, with traditional therapies limited by poor drug penetration. We evaluated a novel hyperthermic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (HPIPAC) system using a human abdominal cavity model for its efficacy against AGS gastric cancer cells. Materials and Methods: A model simulating the human abdominal cavity and AGS gastric cancer cell line cultured dishes were used to assess the efficacy of the HPIPAC system. Cell viability was measured to evaluate the impact of HPIPAC under 6 different conditions: heat alone, PIPAC with paclitaxel (PTX), PTX alone, normal saline (NS) alone, heat with NS, and HPIPAC with PTX. Results: Results showed a significant reduction in cell viability with HPIPAC combined with PTX, indicating enhanced cytotoxic effects. Immediately after treatment, the average cell viability was 66.6%, which decreased to 49.2% after 48 hours and to a further 19.6% after 120 hours of incubation, demonstrating the sustained efficacy of the treatment. In contrast, control groups exhibited a recovery in cell viability; heat alone showed cell viability increasing from 90.8% to 94.4%, PIPAC with PTX from 82.7% to 89.7%, PTX only from 73.3% to 74.8%, NS only from 90.9% to 98.3%, and heat with NS from 74.4% to 84.7%. Conclusions The HPIPAC system with PTX exhibits a promising approach in the treatment of PC in gastric cancer, significantly reducing cell viability. Despite certain limitations, this study highlights the system’s potential to enhance treatment outcomes. Future efforts should focus on refining HPIPAC and validating its effectiveness in clinical settings.