ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2022
Incidence and causes of failure in various anatomical pouch designs 20 years after surgical primary ileal-pouch anal anastomosis construction.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis failure in ulcerative colitis: a European tertiary referral center experience.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of robotic, laparoscopic, and open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis outcomes: retrospective cohort study.BJS open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSince the introduction of ileo-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery, various pouch designs have been applied. Recently, there has been renewed interest in creating larger pouch designs to reduce defecation frequency after pouch surgery. The aim of this study was to assess chronic pouch failure (PF) rates and causes in alternative S or septated (SP) pouches when compared to J pouches and B- shaped adaptations.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients that underwent primary IPAA construction surgery from 1978-2000. Pouch designs were subdivided in J and B (J/B), and larger pouches (S/SP). PF included need for a pouch excision, redo pouch procedure, revisional pouch surgery, or permanent ileostomy surgery. Outcomes of this study were incidence and causes for PF per pouch design group.
resultsOut of 200 patients who underwent IPAA surgery, 19 had an S/SP design and 181 had a J/B design. After a follow-up of 27.0 (IQR 23.3 - 29.0) years, 45/200 (22.5%) patients who underwent IPAA surgery between 1975-2000 developed PF. Some 78.9% of patients with an S/SP pouch developed PF, compared to 16.7% of patients with a J/B pouch (p < 0.01). Mechanical outlet issues occurred more often in S/SP pouches when compared to J/B (42.1% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.01), and were predominantly caused by septal- or pouch wall intussusception and efferent loop kinking (S-pouch).
conclusionDespite an inevitable proportion of bias, the current study revealed that S/SP pouches were characterized by an increased PF incidence due to emptying problems after long-term follow-up when compared to J/B pouches. Constructing an S pouch or large septated reservoir at index surgery should therefore be questioned because of a shorter longevity.
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.