Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Stoma formation for fecal diversion is a common procedure in patients with various complicated conditions after colorectal surgery, such as anastomotic leakage. The singleincision laparoscopic approach for stoma creation offers several advantages, including a reduction in surgical wounds and related complications as well as optimal visualization of the surgical field. This video demonstrates a single-port–assisted diverting ileostomy in a 61-yearold man with anastomotic leakage following low anterior resection for advanced rectal cancer.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Objectives: To evaluate changes in probing depth, bleeding on probing, and three-dimensional plaque distribution after using an interdental brush for three months. Methods: This was a split-mouth design, examiner-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Fifteen patients were randomly assigned to use an interdental brush between their maxillary left or right 1st and 2nd premolar. They were instructed not to use an interdental brush on the opposite side for three months. Probing depth, bleeding on probing, bleeding on using an interdental brush, gingival recession, and plaque distribution were assessed at baseline and after three months. Results: After using an interdental brush for three months, 4.26±15.16% of plaque on interdental surfaces decreased. Bleeding on probing and bleeding on using an interdental brush also decreased by 16.67% and 40%, respectively. The size of interdental areas increased by 0.16 mm when using an interdental brush. There were no statistically significant changes in probing depth or gingival recession. Conclusions An interdental brush is an effective interdental cleaning aid that reduces interdental plaque and decreases inflammation of interdental soft tissues.

Objectives: To evaluate changes in probing depth, bleeding on probing, and three-dimensional plaque distribution after using an interdental brush for three months. Methods: This was a split-mouth design, examiner-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Fifteen patients were randomly assigned to use an interdental brush between their maxillary left or right 1st and 2nd premolar. They were instructed not to use an interdental brush on the opposite side for three months. Probing depth, bleeding on probing, bleeding on using an interdental brush, gingival recession, and plaque distribution were assessed at baseline and after three months. Results: After using an interdental brush for three months, 4.26±15.16% of plaque on interdental surfaces decreased. Bleeding on probing and bleeding on using an interdental brush also decreased by 16.67% and 40%, respectively. The size of interdental areas increased by 0.16 mm when using an interdental brush. There were no statistically significant changes in probing depth or gingival recession. Conclusions An interdental brush is an effective interdental cleaning aid that reduces interdental plaque and decreases inflammation of interdental soft tissues.

Objectives: To evaluate changes in probing depth, bleeding on probing, and three-dimensional plaque distribution after using an interdental brush for three months. Methods: This was a split-mouth design, examiner-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Fifteen patients were randomly assigned to use an interdental brush between their maxillary left or right 1st and 2nd premolar. They were instructed not to use an interdental brush on the opposite side for three months. Probing depth, bleeding on probing, bleeding on using an interdental brush, gingival recession, and plaque distribution were assessed at baseline and after three months. Results: After using an interdental brush for three months, 4.26±15.16% of plaque on interdental surfaces decreased. Bleeding on probing and bleeding on using an interdental brush also decreased by 16.67% and 40%, respectively. The size of interdental areas increased by 0.16 mm when using an interdental brush. There were no statistically significant changes in probing depth or gingival recession. Conclusions An interdental brush is an effective interdental cleaning aid that reduces interdental plaque and decreases inflammation of interdental soft tissues.

Stoma formation for fecal diversion is a common procedure in patients with various complicated conditions after colorectal surgery, such as anastomotic leakage. The singleincision laparoscopic approach for stoma creation offers several advantages, including a reduction in surgical wounds and related complications as well as optimal visualization of the surgical field. This video demonstrates a single-port–assisted diverting ileostomy in a 61-yearold man with anastomotic leakage following low anterior resection for advanced rectal cancer.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Objectives: To evaluate changes in probing depth, bleeding on probing, and three-dimensional plaque distribution after using an interdental brush for three months. Methods: This was a split-mouth design, examiner-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Fifteen patients were randomly assigned to use an interdental brush between their maxillary left or right 1st and 2nd premolar. They were instructed not to use an interdental brush on the opposite side for three months. Probing depth, bleeding on probing, bleeding on using an interdental brush, gingival recession, and plaque distribution were assessed at baseline and after three months. Results: After using an interdental brush for three months, 4.26±15.16% of plaque on interdental surfaces decreased. Bleeding on probing and bleeding on using an interdental brush also decreased by 16.67% and 40%, respectively. The size of interdental areas increased by 0.16 mm when using an interdental brush. There were no statistically significant changes in probing depth or gingival recession. Conclusions An interdental brush is an effective interdental cleaning aid that reduces interdental plaque and decreases inflammation of interdental soft tissues.