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.

Objective: Spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition; however, the optimal surgical treatment for central lumbar stenosis remains controversial. This study compared the clinical outcomes and radiological parameters of 3 surgical methods: unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (ULBD-UBE), conventional subtotal laminectomy (STL), and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods: This retrospective study included 86 patients, divided into ULBD-UBE (n=34), STL (n=24), and MIS-TLIF (n=28) groups. We evaluated demographics and perioperative factors and assessed clinical outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). Radiological parameters assessed included lumbar lordosis, L4S1 Cobb angle (L4S1), T12S1 Cobb angle (T12S1), increased cross-sectional dural area (CSA), dynamic angulation (DA), dynamic slip (DS), and development of postoperative instability. Results: The ULBD-UBE group showed a significantly shorter hospital stay duration and operation time and reduced blood loss than the other groups (p<0.001). ULBD-UBE group showed a trend towards greater VAS and ODI improvement at 1 month and postoperative NIC symptom relief. Radiologically, MIS-TLIF group exhibited lower postoperative DA and DS (p<0.001), indicating higher postoperative stability. Postoperative instability was lower in the ULBD-UBE group (2.9%) than in the STL group (16.7%) and similar to the MIS-TLIF group (0.0%) (p=0.028). The CSA was highest in the MIS-TLIF group (295.5%) compared to that in the other groups (ULBD-UBE, 216.3%; STL, 245.2%) (p<0.001). Conclusion Compared to other procedures, ULBD-UBE is a safe, effective, and viable surgical procedure for treating lumbar central stenosis.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the incidence of delayed-onset neurological deficits (DONDs), DOND-related reoperation rates following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, and efficacy of transverse process hooks (TPHs) at the uppermost instrumented vertebra (UIV) compared to pedicle screws (PSs). Methods: We included 90 consecutive patients who underwent instrumented fusion from the sacrum to the distal thoracic spine for ASD, with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Clinical and radiological outcomes were compared between 33 patients in the TPH group and 57 patients in the PS group, using the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Outcomes questionnaire (SRS-22), Medical Outcomes Study Questionnaire Short-Form 36 (SF-36), and various spinal sagittal parameters. Results: While absent in the TPH group, myelopathy occurred in 15.8% of the PS group, wherein 15 patients underwent reoperation. The change in the proximal junctional angle, from the pre- to postoperative assessment, was lower in the TPH group than in the PS group (0.2 vs. 6.6, p=0.002). Postoperative facet degeneration in the PS group progressed more significantly than in the TPH group (0.5 vs. 0.1, p=0.002). Surgical outcomes were comparable for both groups, except for the back visual analogue scale (3.5 vs. 4.1, p=0.010) and SRS-22 domains, including pain and satisfaction (3.3 vs. 2.9, p=0.033; 3.7 vs. 3.3, p=0.041). No intergroup difference was observed in SF-36. Conclusion Using TPHs at the UIV level can prevent DOND, and thereby prevent postoperative myelopathy that necessitates reoperation; thus, TPHs is preferable over PSs in ASD surgery.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic spine surgery and conventional pedicle screw fixation in lumbar degenerative disease. We evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic surgery. Methods: This study employed propensity score matching and included 3 groups: robot-assisted mini-open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (robotic surgery, RS), c-arm guided minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (C-arm guidance, CG), and freehand open PLIF (free of guidance, FG) (54 patients each). The mean follow-up period was 2.2 years. The preoperative spine condition was considered. Accuracy was evaluated using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (GRS score) and Babu classification (Babu score). Radiological outcomes included adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and mechanical failure. Clinical outcomes were assessed based on the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short Form health survey, and clinical ASD rate. Results: Accuracy was higher in the RS group (p < 0.01) than in other groups. The GRS score was lower in the CG group, whereas the Babu score was lower in the FG group compared with the RS group. No significant differences were observed in radiological and clinical outcomes among the 3 groups. Regression analysis identified preoperative facet degeneration, GRS and Babu scores as significant variables for radiological and clinical ASD. Mechanical failure was influenced by the GRS score and patients’ age. Conclusion This study showed the superior accuracy of robotic spine surgery compared with conventional techniques. When combined with minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery is advantageous with reduced ligament and muscle damage associated with traditional open procedures.

Objective: Spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition; however, the optimal surgical treatment for central lumbar stenosis remains controversial. This study compared the clinical outcomes and radiological parameters of 3 surgical methods: unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (ULBD-UBE), conventional subtotal laminectomy (STL), and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods: This retrospective study included 86 patients, divided into ULBD-UBE (n=34), STL (n=24), and MIS-TLIF (n=28) groups. We evaluated demographics and perioperative factors and assessed clinical outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). Radiological parameters assessed included lumbar lordosis, L4S1 Cobb angle (L4S1), T12S1 Cobb angle (T12S1), increased cross-sectional dural area (CSA), dynamic angulation (DA), dynamic slip (DS), and development of postoperative instability. Results: The ULBD-UBE group showed a significantly shorter hospital stay duration and operation time and reduced blood loss than the other groups (p<0.001). ULBD-UBE group showed a trend towards greater VAS and ODI improvement at 1 month and postoperative NIC symptom relief. Radiologically, MIS-TLIF group exhibited lower postoperative DA and DS (p<0.001), indicating higher postoperative stability. Postoperative instability was lower in the ULBD-UBE group (2.9%) than in the STL group (16.7%) and similar to the MIS-TLIF group (0.0%) (p=0.028). The CSA was highest in the MIS-TLIF group (295.5%) compared to that in the other groups (ULBD-UBE, 216.3%; STL, 245.2%) (p<0.001). Conclusion Compared to other procedures, ULBD-UBE is a safe, effective, and viable surgical procedure for treating lumbar central stenosis.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the incidence of delayed-onset neurological deficits (DONDs), DOND-related reoperation rates following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, and efficacy of transverse process hooks (TPHs) at the uppermost instrumented vertebra (UIV) compared to pedicle screws (PSs). Methods: We included 90 consecutive patients who underwent instrumented fusion from the sacrum to the distal thoracic spine for ASD, with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Clinical and radiological outcomes were compared between 33 patients in the TPH group and 57 patients in the PS group, using the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Outcomes questionnaire (SRS-22), Medical Outcomes Study Questionnaire Short-Form 36 (SF-36), and various spinal sagittal parameters. Results: While absent in the TPH group, myelopathy occurred in 15.8% of the PS group, wherein 15 patients underwent reoperation. The change in the proximal junctional angle, from the pre- to postoperative assessment, was lower in the TPH group than in the PS group (0.2 vs. 6.6, p=0.002). Postoperative facet degeneration in the PS group progressed more significantly than in the TPH group (0.5 vs. 0.1, p=0.002). Surgical outcomes were comparable for both groups, except for the back visual analogue scale (3.5 vs. 4.1, p=0.010) and SRS-22 domains, including pain and satisfaction (3.3 vs. 2.9, p=0.033; 3.7 vs. 3.3, p=0.041). No intergroup difference was observed in SF-36. Conclusion Using TPHs at the UIV level can prevent DOND, and thereby prevent postoperative myelopathy that necessitates reoperation; thus, TPHs is preferable over PSs in ASD surgery.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic spine surgery and conventional pedicle screw fixation in lumbar degenerative disease. We evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic surgery. Methods: This study employed propensity score matching and included 3 groups: robot-assisted mini-open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (robotic surgery, RS), c-arm guided minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (C-arm guidance, CG), and freehand open PLIF (free of guidance, FG) (54 patients each). The mean follow-up period was 2.2 years. The preoperative spine condition was considered. Accuracy was evaluated using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (GRS score) and Babu classification (Babu score). Radiological outcomes included adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and mechanical failure. Clinical outcomes were assessed based on the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short Form health survey, and clinical ASD rate. Results: Accuracy was higher in the RS group (p < 0.01) than in other groups. The GRS score was lower in the CG group, whereas the Babu score was lower in the FG group compared with the RS group. No significant differences were observed in radiological and clinical outcomes among the 3 groups. Regression analysis identified preoperative facet degeneration, GRS and Babu scores as significant variables for radiological and clinical ASD. Mechanical failure was influenced by the GRS score and patients’ age. Conclusion This study showed the superior accuracy of robotic spine surgery compared with conventional techniques. When combined with minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery is advantageous with reduced ligament and muscle damage associated with traditional open procedures.