SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2020
Modified two-stage restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of technical approaches and clinical outcomes.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Endotoxin in drainage fluid as an early and predictive marker of anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Two-step versus three-step proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis: a comparative study on nutritional status, immunosuppressive therapy, and long-term outcome.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Article
- Current Management of Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis: New Insights on the Surgical Approaches.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Ethnic Variation Trends in the Use of Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2023Article
- The Benefits and Drawbacks of Staging Pelvic Pouches.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022Review
- Preoperative risk factors of incisional surgical site infection in severe or intractable ulcerative colitis.Surgery today · 2022Article
- Research trends in ulcerative colitis: A bibliometric and visualized study from 2011 to 2021.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- Staging Pouch Surgery in Ulcerative Colitis in the Biological Era.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022Review
- State-of-the-art surgery for ulcerative colitis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRestorative proctocolectomy (RPC) is performed for patients with refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). This operation is performed in 2 or 3 stages and involves forming a diverting loop ileostomy thought to protect patients from complications related to anastomotic leak. However, some advocate for a modified 2-stage approach, consisting of subtotal colectomy followed by completion proctectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis without diverting ileostomy. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing postoperative complication rates between modified 2-stage and traditional RPC with ileal pouch anal anastomosis.
methodsRecords were sourced from PubMed/Embase databases. Studies comparing postoperative complications following RPC for ulcerative colitis (UC) were selected according to PRISMA guidelines comparing modified 2-stage (exposure), classic 2-stage, and 3-stage approaches (comparators). The primary outcome measure was safety as measured by postoperative complication rates. We employed random effects meta-analysis.
resultsWe included ten observational studies including 1727 patients (38% modified 2-stage). Among pediatric patients, modified 2-stage approaches had higher rates of anastomotic leak than 3-stage approaches (p = 0.03). Among adult cohorts with lower preoperative biologic use rates, modified 2-stage approaches had lower leak rates than classic 2-stage approaches (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe modified 2-stage approach may be safe for adult patients who otherwise require a 3-stage approach while reducing costs and length of stay. Pediatric patients may benefit from lower leak rates when receiving 3-stage compared with modified 2-stage approaches, especially when on biologics. The modified 2-stage approach may be safer than the classic 2-stage approach for adult patients with lower biologic exposure.
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.