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: This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy in patients surgically treated for clinically early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with clinically earlystage EOC based on preoperative abdominal-pelvic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging findings between 2007 and 2021. Oncologic outcomes and perioperative complications were compared between the lymphadenectomy and non-lymphadenectomy groups. Independent prognostic factors were determined using Cox regression analysis.Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary outcome. Overall survival (OS) and perioperative outcomes were the secondary outcomes. Results: In total, 586 patients (lymphadenectomy group, n=453 [77.3%]; nonlymphadenectomy groups, n=133 [22.7%]) were eligible. After surgical staging, upstaging was identified based on the presence of lymph node metastasis in 14 (3.1%) of 453 patients.No significant difference was found in the 5-year DFS (88.9% vs. 83.4%, p=0.203) and 5-year OS (97.2% vs. 97.7%, p=0.895) between the two groups. Using multivariable analysis, lymphadenectomy was not significantly associated with DFS or OS. However, using subgroup analysis, the lymphadenectomy group with serous histology had higher 5-year DFS rates than did the non-lymphadenectomy group (86.5% vs. 74.4%, p=0.048; adjusted hazard ratio=0.281; 95% confidence interval=0.107–0.735; p=0.010). The lymphadenectomy group had longer operating time (p<0.001), higher estimated blood loss (p<0.001), and higher perioperative complication rate (p=0.004) than did the non-lymphadenectomy group. Conclusion In patients with clinically early-stage EOC with serous histology, lymphadenectomy was associated with survival benefits. Considering its potential harm,

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy in patients surgically treated for clinically early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with clinically earlystage EOC based on preoperative abdominal-pelvic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging findings between 2007 and 2021. Oncologic outcomes and perioperative complications were compared between the lymphadenectomy and non-lymphadenectomy groups. Independent prognostic factors were determined using Cox regression analysis.Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary outcome. Overall survival (OS) and perioperative outcomes were the secondary outcomes. Results: In total, 586 patients (lymphadenectomy group, n=453 [77.3%]; nonlymphadenectomy groups, n=133 [22.7%]) were eligible. After surgical staging, upstaging was identified based on the presence of lymph node metastasis in 14 (3.1%) of 453 patients.No significant difference was found in the 5-year DFS (88.9% vs. 83.4%, p=0.203) and 5-year OS (97.2% vs. 97.7%, p=0.895) between the two groups. Using multivariable analysis, lymphadenectomy was not significantly associated with DFS or OS. However, using subgroup analysis, the lymphadenectomy group with serous histology had higher 5-year DFS rates than did the non-lymphadenectomy group (86.5% vs. 74.4%, p=0.048; adjusted hazard ratio=0.281; 95% confidence interval=0.107–0.735; p=0.010). The lymphadenectomy group had longer operating time (p<0.001), higher estimated blood loss (p<0.001), and higher perioperative complication rate (p=0.004) than did the non-lymphadenectomy group. Conclusion In patients with clinically early-stage EOC with serous histology, lymphadenectomy was associated with survival benefits. Considering its potential harm,

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy in patients surgically treated for clinically early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with clinically earlystage EOC based on preoperative abdominal-pelvic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging findings between 2007 and 2021. Oncologic outcomes and perioperative complications were compared between the lymphadenectomy and non-lymphadenectomy groups. Independent prognostic factors were determined using Cox regression analysis.Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary outcome. Overall survival (OS) and perioperative outcomes were the secondary outcomes. Results: In total, 586 patients (lymphadenectomy group, n=453 [77.3%]; nonlymphadenectomy groups, n=133 [22.7%]) were eligible. After surgical staging, upstaging was identified based on the presence of lymph node metastasis in 14 (3.1%) of 453 patients.No significant difference was found in the 5-year DFS (88.9% vs. 83.4%, p=0.203) and 5-year OS (97.2% vs. 97.7%, p=0.895) between the two groups. Using multivariable analysis, lymphadenectomy was not significantly associated with DFS or OS. However, using subgroup analysis, the lymphadenectomy group with serous histology had higher 5-year DFS rates than did the non-lymphadenectomy group (86.5% vs. 74.4%, p=0.048; adjusted hazard ratio=0.281; 95% confidence interval=0.107–0.735; p=0.010). The lymphadenectomy group had longer operating time (p<0.001), higher estimated blood loss (p<0.001), and higher perioperative complication rate (p=0.004) than did the non-lymphadenectomy group. Conclusion In patients with clinically early-stage EOC with serous histology, lymphadenectomy was associated with survival benefits. Considering its potential harm,

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of conservative treatment in selected patients with atraumatic medial sesamoid pain (MSP) that developed during sports activities. The secondary aim was to determine the detailed underlying pathology in patients who did not respond to conservative treatment using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods: From March 2015 to August 2022, we prospectively followed 27 patients who presented to our outpatient clinic with atraumatic sports-related MSP. The conservative treatment protocol for MSP included the use of oral analgesics, activity restriction, insole modification, local corticosteroid injections, and boot walker application with crutches. MRI was performed for all patients who experienced persistent pain despite the completion of conservative treatment. Results: After the completion of the conservative treatment protocol, 48.1% of the patients reported a reduction in pain. Patients with younger age at pain onset (p = 0.001), higher body mass index (p = 0.001), and a bipartite medial sesamoid (p = 0.010) were more likely to experience persistent pain after conservative treatment. The type of sports activity was also a factor since runningand dancing-related MSP tended to respond better to conservative treatment compared to MSP originating from golf, futsal, and weightlifting with squatting. On MRI, 42.8% of patients showed no specific abnormal findings, with signal changes in soft tissues such as the subcutaneous fat and bursa being the most common, followed by intraosseous signal changes of the medial sesamoid bone and chondral or subchondral lesions of the medial sesamoid metatarsal joint (28.6% each). Conclusions Conservative treatment was successful in less than half of the patients who experienced MSP due to sports activity. Practitioners should be aware of the numerous possible causes of conservative treatment failure, such as bursitis, medial sesamoiditis, stress fracture, or chondral lesions between the medial sesamoid and metatarsal. MRI evaluation may be helpful in MSP patients who do not respond to conservative treatment.

Background: Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care, because it is the first step through which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit, and return to normal life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider scientific and systematic approaches, as well as the individual experiences of healthcare professionals. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools to identify when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians for 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. These evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved the recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine questions on ventilator liberation about Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) are presented in this document. This guideline presents seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusion 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.

Background: Current international guidelines recommend against deep sedation as it is associated with worse outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, in Korea the prevalence of deep sedation and its impact on patients in the ICU are not well known. Methods: From April 2020 to July 2021, a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal, noninterventional cohort study was performed in 20 Korean ICUs. Sedation depth extent was divided into light and deep using a mean Richmond Agitation–Sedation Scale value within the first 48 hours. Propensity score matching was used to balance covariables; the outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: Overall, 631 patients (418 [66.2%] and 213 [33.8%] in the deep and light sedation groups, respectively) were included. Mortality rates were 14.1% and 8.4% in the deep and light sedation groups (P = 0.039), respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates showed that time to extubation (P < 0.001), ICU length of stay (P = 0.005), and death P = 0.041) differed between the groups. After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation was only associated with delayed time to extubation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence inter val [CI], 0.55– 0.80; P < 0.001). In the matched cohort, deep sedation remained significantly associated with delayed time to extubation (HR, 0.68; 95% 0.56–0.83; P < 0.001) but was not associated with ICU length of stay (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79–1.13; P = 0.500) and in-hospital mortality (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.65–2.17; P = 0.582). Conclusion In many Korean ICUs, early deep sedation was highly prevalent in mechanically ventilated patients and was associated with delayed extubation, but not prolonged ICU stay or in-hospital death.