ArticleSurgery in practice and science2022
Laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis reduces the risk of surgical site infections: An ACS-NSQIP study.
Article in Surgery in practice and science, 2022. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Previous literature related to postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic vs. open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is primarily based on small numbers of patients from single institutions. The aim of this study is to evaluate these outcomes in a large number of patients using propensity score matching (PSM). Material and Methods: The ACS-NSQIP Program data files (2016-2019) were reviewed to identify patients who underwent an IPAA creation. The impact of surgical approach on operative and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) on all patient characteristics was used to obtain matched groups. Fisher's Exact/Chi-Squared tests were used to compare outcomes between groups. A Bonferroni correction was applied to the outcomes, with a p-value of 0.0031 representing statistical significance. Results: 1802 patients were identified, with 1001 patients in the laparoscopic group and 801 patients in the open group. PSM yielded 702 patients in each matched group. Median operative time was longer for laparoscopic IPAA (278vs218.5 minutes, p<0.001). Laparoscopic IPAA patients were less likely to develop superficial and deep SSIs (3.0% vs 6.6% p=0.003). There were no differences in in-hospital mortality (0.4% vs 0.0%, p=0.3), anastomotic leak (4.0% vs 3.3%, p=1.0), organ-space SSI (6.7% vs 6.0, p=1.0), or reoperation (5.7% vs 4.0%, p=0.2) between groups. Length of stay was lower after laparoscopic IPAA (5.0 vs 6.0 days, p=0.004). There were no differences between groups in other postoperative complications. Discussion: These data suggest that when matched for other confounding variables, laparoscopic IPAA is associated with reduced length of stay and superficial/deep SSIs when compared to open IPAA. Other surgical complications, including in-hospital mortality and anastomotic leak, are similar. Conclusion: Given the recovery benefit of the laparoscopic approach and the reduced SSI, laparoscopy should be the method of choice for the majority of patients undergoing IPAA.
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.