Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12690483›Full record

ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2003

Pouch reconstruction in the pelvis.

H-P Bruch, O Schwandner, S Farke, J Nolde

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [The transverse coloplasty pouch after low anterior resection: early postoperative results].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2004
    Trial
  2. [Preventive surgery for familial adenomatous polyposis coli].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2005
    Review
  3. The transverse coloplasty pouch.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2005
    Review
  4. Article
  5. [Reconstructive surgery after anterior resection of the rectum].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2004
    Article
  6. [Surgical therapy of rectal carcinoma].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2003
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

H-P BruchKlinik für Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538 Lübeck, Germany. bruch@medinf.mu-luebeck.de
O Schwandner
S Farke
J Nolde
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ileal pouch reconstructionProctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the procedure of choice in mucosal ulcerative colitis (MUC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Because the disease is cured by surgical resection, functional results, pouch survival prognosis, and disease or dysplasia control are the major determinants of success. There is controversy as to whether the IPAA should be handsewn with mucosectomy or stapled, preserving the mucosa of the anal transitional zone. Crohn's disease is a contraindication for IPAA, but long-term outcome after IPAA is similar to that for MUC in patients with indeterminate colitis who do not develop Crohn's disease. As development of dysplasia and cancer in the ileal pouch have been reported, a standardized surveillance program is mandatory in cases of MUC, FAP, and chronic pouchitis. COLONIC POUCH RECONSTRUCTION: Construction of a colonic pouch is a widely accepted technique to improve functional outcome after low or intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. Several randomized studies comparing colo-pouch-anal anastomosis (CPA) with straight coloanal anastomosis (CAA) have found the pouch functionally superior. Most controlled studies cover only 1-year follow-up, but randomized studies with 2-year follow-up show similar functional results of CPA and CAA. Evacuation difficulty as initially observed was related to pouch size, and the results with smaller pouches (5-6 cm) are more favorable, showing adequate reservoir function without compromising neorectal evacuation. The transverse coloplasty pouch may offer several advantages to J-pouch reconstruction. Current series question whether the neorectal reservoir is the physiological key of the pouch, but rather the decreased motility. The major advantage reported with colonic pouch reconstruction is the lower incidence of anastomotic complications.

Indexed as

Colonic PouchesAdenomatous Polyposis ColiColitis, UlcerativeColorectal NeoplasmsContraindicationsHumansLaparoscopyPlastic Surgery ProceduresProctocolectomy, RestorativePrognosisRadiotherapy, AdjuvantRectal NeoplasmsSurgical Stapling

Identifiers

PMID12690483
OpenAlexW1538801890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.