Restorative proctocolectomy: the current ochsner experience.

Shahrazad Talebinejad, Terry C Hicks, David A Margolin, Charles B Whitlow, H David Vargas, David E Beck

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Ochsner journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

2citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

The evolution of colorectal cancer genetics-Part 2: clinical implications and applications.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2014
Review
Recent publications by ochsner authors: october 2013 - march 2014.Ochsner journal · 2014
Article

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

6 authors.

Shahrazad TalebinejadDepartment of General Surgery, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA.

Terry C HicksDepartment of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA.

David A MargolinDepartment of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA ; The University of Queensland School of Medicine, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA.

Charles B WhitlowDepartment of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA.

H David VargasDepartment of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA.

David E BeckDepartment of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA ; The University of Queensland School of Medicine, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRestorative proctocolectomy with an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is a technically demanding procedure to treat ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. Since its initial description almost 30 years ago, the operation has undergone technical and perioperative modifications to improve the patient's experience.

methodsWe performed a retrospective review of the records of patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy at the Ochsner Clinic Foundation Hospital from 2008 to 2012 and compared data from that period to data from 1989-1995 (prior to laparoscopic pouch surgery) to determine factors associated with patient outcome.

resultsIleal pouch-anal procedures were performed in 77 patients. The 30 male and 47 female patients ranged in age from 13 to 63 years (mean, 34.5 years). The indications for the procedure were ulcerative colitis in 62 patients, polyposis coli in 12 patients, and Crohn disease in 3 patients. Forty patients (52%) had laparoscopic-assisted procedures. The overall hospital length of stay for pouch creation averaged 6.9 days (range 3-29) and for ileostomy closure averaged 4.3 days (range 1-15). No perioperative deaths occurred within 30 days. Complications occurred in 37.7% of patients. Compared to a previous report of 72 patients from 1989 to 1995, the recent group had more laparoscopic procedures, shorter hospital stays, a smaller percentage of 3-stage procedures, and fewer general and pouch-related complications. Pouch failures were similar for both groups.

conclusionAdvances in operative techniques and perioperative management have improved the outcome of restorative proctocolectomies.

Indexed as

Anastomosis—surgicalcolonic poucheslaparoscopypostoperative complicationsproctocolectomy—restorative

Identifiers

PMID24357999

PMCPMC3865829

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.