ArticleAnnals of Saudi medicine
Outcome after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for familial adenomatous polyposis compared to mucosal ulcerative colitis in a Middle Eastern population.
Article in Annals of Saudi medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcome of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with ulcerative colitis versus patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Pooled it
- Crohn's-like Ileal Pouch Illness and Ileal Pouch Salvage Strategies.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025Review
- Molecular pathology of colorectal cancer: The Saudi situation in perspective.Saudi medical journal · 2023Review
- Single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a report of 33 cases in Saudi Arabia.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTo compare the complications and outcome after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for mucosal ulcerative colitis (MUC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). DESIGN AND SETTINGS: This is a retrospective study. The study was conducted at a single tertiary referral center.
methodsAll patients who underwent restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA at a tertiary center in Saudi Arabia from 2001 till 2009 were retrieved. Data was obtained regarding preoperative status, postoperative complications, and functional outcome.
resultsA total of 40 patients underwent IPAA, of which 21 cases were of FAP and 19 cases of MUC. Median age at operation for FAP and MUC was 31 (range: 16-45) and 43 (range: 15-65) years, respectively (P < .05). Median length of stay was 10 days (range: 6-42) for FAP and 12 days (range: 9-27) for MUC (P=.1). Postoperative morbidity was noted in 4 cases of FAP and 6 cases of MUC (P=.36). Specifically, wound infection was noted in 2 cases of FAP compared to 3 cases of MUC (P=.55); 1 MUC case had an anastomotic leak (P=.29). One mortality was recorded among the FAP cases (P=.35). The time between the creation of IPAA and the closure of ileostomy was 4.5 and 5 months for FAP and MUC, respectively (P=.87). Median follow-up was 36 months. Median bowel frequency per 24 hours was 6 (range: 3-24) for FAP and 7 (range 3-17) for MUC (P=.54). Intestinal obstruction was reported in 3 cases of FAP and 5 cases of MUC (P=.38). One pouch was excised in a FAP patient. One case of MUC developed pouchitis.
conclusionsThe outcome after IPAA was inferior for MUC compared to FAP, but it was not statistically significant due to the small sample size. The morbid status of the MUC cases and their older age contributed to the minor differences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.