ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Pouch outcomes after minimally invasive vs. open proctectomy during IPAA reconstruction.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of restorative proctectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a matched-cohort analysis of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Predictors of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis failure in ulcerative colitis: a European tertiary referral center experience.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- A network meta-analysis comparing laparoscopic, open and robotic restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [IPAA].Updates in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited data on pouch outcomes after minimally invasive (MIS) proctectomy during ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). This study aimed to determine if MIS proctectomy is associated with differences in pouch complications compared to open.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from two academic institutions (2010-2022) who underwent restorative proctectomy with IPAA for inflammatory bowel disease, excluding those with Crohn's disease or Crohn's-like disease of the pouch. Patients were categorized into Open and MIS groups based on surgical approach. Perioperative outcomes and rates of pouchitis, cuffitis, and pouch failure were compared. Patient, disease, and operative factors associated with risk of pouch complications were identified using multivariable regression.
results117 patients were included: 36 MIS and 81 Open. Median age at colectomy was 35 years, and 60% were male. Demographics, preoperative symptoms, medications, and surgical indications were comparable between groups. Rates of pouchitis (MIS 37% vs. Open 45%; p = 0.4), cuffitis (32% vs. 27%; p = 0.5), and pouch failure (5.6% vs. 6.2%; p > 0.9) were similar. MIS was associated with lower estimated blood loss (median 75 cc vs. 150 cc; p < 0.001). There were no differences in length of stay (MIS: 5 days vs. Open: 6 days; p = 0.2), operative time, or 30-day postoperative complications (HR 1.41; p = 0.5). There was a trend toward fewer anastomotic leaks in the MIS group (2.1% vs. 9.7%; p-0.2). On multivariable analysis, only initial colectomy for an indication of acute severe ulcerative colitis (HR 6.21; p = 0.044) and
conclusionsMIS proctectomy is associated with equivalent long-term pouch outcomes compared to open proctectomy. There may be a reduced risk of anastomotic leak with MIS and other perioperative outcomes were similar between groups. Patient and disease factors, but not operative factors, were associated with risk of pouch complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39979620What 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.