ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Pouch wall thickness and floppy pouch complex.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundFloppy pouch complex (FPC) consists of disease phenotypes in patients with ileal pouches, including pouch prolapse, afferent limb syndrome, enterocele, redundant loop, and pouch folding. Our recent study demonstrated that lower body weight, lower peripouch fat, family history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), female gender, and dyschezia are risk factors for FPC patients with IBD. The aims of this study were to assess the relationship between pouch wall thickness and FPC, and to investigate the association between inflamed and non-inflamed pouch wall thickness.
methodsThis case-control study included all eligible patients with FPC from our prospectively maintained, IRB-approved Pouchitis Registry from 2011 to 2017. We measured pouch wall thickness of fully distended pouches on cross-sectional abdominal and pelvic imaging. Patients with stoma and non-distended pouches were completely excluded. Risk factors for FPC were analyzed.
resultsA total of 140 out of 451 patients from our were found to have fully distended pouches on imaging. Of the 140 patients, 36 (25.7%) were diagnosed as having FPC. We analyzed pouch wall thickness for each subcategory of FPC as well as non-FPC conditions. The thickness of pouch wall was follows: pouch prolapse (N = 19): 1.5 mm (1.5-2.0), afferent limb syndrome (N = 12): 1.5 mm (1.1-2.0), folded pouch (N = 4): 1.5 mm (1.1-1.9), and redundant pouch (N = 2): 1.3 mm (1.0-1.3). The control group (N = 104) consisting of normal pouch, pouchitis, cuffitis, Crohn's disease of the pouch, and pouch sinus with median pouch wall thickness of 1.5 mm, 2.3 mm, 2.0 mm, 2.0 mm, and 1.5 mm, respectively. There were significant differences in pouch wall thickness between normal or non-inflamed pouch versus pouchitis versus cuffitis versus Crohn's disease of the pouch with p values of 0.01, 0.04, 0.05, and 0.049, respectively.
conclusionPatients with FPC were shown to have thin pouch wall, which those with inflammatory conditions of the pouch tended to have thick pouch wall. These findings will have implications in both diagnosis and investigation of etiopathogenesis of these disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31650238What 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.