Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30738034›Full record

ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2019

Differential risk of disease progression between isolated anastomotic ulcers and mild ileal recurrence after ileocolonic resection in patients with Crohn's disease.

Jacob E Ollech, Maya Aharoni-Golan, Roni Weisshof, Inessa Normatov, Abby R Sapp, Aditya Kalakonda, Amanda Israel, Laura R Glick, Theodore Karrison, Sushila R Dalal and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. How Reliable Is Endoscopic Scoring of Postoperative Recurrence in Crohn Disease?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Case Report: Managing Postoperative Crohn's Disease.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jacob E OllechInflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Maya Aharoni-GolanInflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Roni WeisshofInflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Inessa NormatovInflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abby R SappDepartment of Gastroenterology, Franciscan Alliance, Hammond, Indiana, USA.
Aditya KalakondaBaystate Medical Center, University of Massachusetts, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA.
Amanda IsraelInflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Laura R GlickInflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Theodore KarrisonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Biostatistics Lab, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Sushila R DalalInflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Atsushi SakurabaInflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Russell D CohenInflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
David T RubinInflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Joel PekowInflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
University of Chicago · USBaystate Medical Center · USChicago Department of Public Health · USFranciscan Health · US

Funding

ULTRASTRUCTURE AND CYTOMORPHOLOGY COREP30DK042086 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI CHANG, EUGENE B · 1990 to 2025
$29.8M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK042086
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsIt is standard of care to perform ileocolonoscopy within a year of ileocolonic resection for Crohn's disease (CD) and to guide management decisions based on the Rutgeert score (RS). The modified RS subdivides i2 into lesions confined to the anastomosis (i2a) or >5 aphthous lesions in the neoterminal ileum (i2b). There is uncertainty, however, if i2a lesions incur an increased risk of disease recurrence. The primary aim of this study was to compare the rates of endoscopic progression between i2a and i2b when compared with i0-i1.

methodsThis was a retrospective, single-center study including patients with CD who had an ileocolonoscopy ≤12 months after ileocolonic resection with primary anastomosis and who had >1 year of documented clinical follow-up after the index endoscopic evaluation. All consecutive eligible patients between 2004 and 2014 were included in the study. Demographic, disease, and treatment data were collected. Patients with i3 or i4 at index colonoscopy were excluded from further analyses. Outcomes included endoscopic progression and recurrent surgery. For patients with RS of i0 to i2, endoscopic progression was predefined as progression of the RS in subsequent colonoscopies to i3 or i4. Recurrent surgical interventions were defined as re-resection or stricturoplasty of the previous ileocolonic anastomosis.

resultsTwo hundred seven CD patients (median age, 36 years [interquartile range, 26-48]) had an ileocolonoscopy ≤12 months after ileocolonic resection. At index colonoscopy, 95 patients (45.9%) had an RS of i0, 31 (14.9%) i1, 40 (19.3%) i2a, 25 (12.1%) i2b, 10 (4.8%) i3, and 6 (2.9%) i4. One hundred ninety-one patients had an RS of i0 to i2 and were included in the analyses for recurrent surgery. One hundred forty-nine patients had a second endoscopic evaluation and were included in the analysis for the primary outcome of endoscopic disease progression. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed and found the hazard ratio (HR) of endoscopic progression to be significantly higher with i2b lesions when compared with i0 or i1 (HR, 6.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.38-16.2; P = .0008). Patients with i2a did not have significantly higher rates of endoscopic progression when compared with i0 or i1 (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, .80-6.66; P = .12). Likewise, patients with i2b lesions had higher risk of needing recurrent surgery when compared with i0 or i1 (HR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.10-12.1; P = .034), whereas patients with i2a lesions were not found to have a significantly elevated risk of recurrent surgery (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, .35-5.77; P = .62).

conclusionEndoscopic lesions limited to the ileocolonic anastomosis (RS i2a) in patients with CD undergoing colonoscopy within 1 year of their resection were not associated with a significantly higher rate of progression to more severe disease, whereas those in the neoileum (RS i2b) were. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

AdultAnastomosis, SurgicalColonColonoscopyCrohn DiseaseDigestive System Surgical ProceduresDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansIleal DiseasesIleumMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRecurrenceRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30738034
PMCPMC6774247
OpenAlexW2911591445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.