ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2017
[The technique of restorative proctocolectomy with ileal J‑pouch : Standards and controversies].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRestorative proctocolectomy (RPC) is the standard of care in the case of medically refractory disease and in neoplasia in ulcerative colitis (UC).
objectivesThis review aims at providing an overview of the current evidence on standards, innovations, and controversies with regard to the surgical technique of RPC.
resultsRPC is the standard of care in the surgical management of UC refractory to medical treatment and in neoplasia. Due to its simplicity and good functional outcomes, the J‑pouch is the most used pouch design. RPC is usually performed as a two-stage procedure. In the presence of risk factors, a three-stage procedure should be performed. The technically more demanding mucosectomy and hand sewn anastomosis does not seem to result in a better oncologic outcome than stapled anastomosis. Functional results appear marginally better after stapled anastomosis, but the rectal cuff should not exceed 2 cm in this reconstruction. The laparoscopic approach is at least as good as the open approach. For the new, innovative surgical approaches such as robotics and transanal surgery, only feasibility but no advantages have yet been demonstrated.
conclusionThe evidence in regard to controversial points remains limited.
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.