ArticleArquivos de gastroenterologia2025
IMMEDIATE AND LATE RESULTS OF ILEOSTOMY CLOSURE IN PATIENTS WITH FAMILIAL ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS UNDERGOING RESTORATIVE PROCTOCOLECTOMY BY OPEN OR LAPAROSCOPIC APPROACHES.
Article in Arquivos de gastroenterologia, 2025. 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
backgroundRestorative proctocolectomy (RPC) is a common surgical indication to manage familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) patients.
objectiveWe compared outcomes after ileostomy closure in patients undergoing laparoscopic (LAP) or conventional (OPEN) RPC at one single institution.
methodsCharts from FAP patients (1997-2013) were reviewed. Demographic data (age, sex, previous surgery) and surgical outcomes (original surgical approach, early and late morbidity, complications and reoperations after ileostomy closure) were compared.
resultsA total of 84 patients (53 women and 31 men) submitted to ileostomy closure at a mean age of 30.6 years (11-64) were analyzed. Twenty-one (25%) and 63 patients (75%) formed the OPEN and LAP groups, respectively. Demographic features were similar. After pouch construction, 27 early (32.1%) and 8 late (9.5%) complications occurred, with no mortality. Although overall morbidity rates were similar between both approaches, late complications rate were less common in LAP patients (7.9% x 14.2%). After ileostomy closure, complications were registered in 6 (7.1%) patients, and patients previously operated with the LAP approach also presented less complications (4.7% x 14.2%) and reoperations (3.1% x 9.5%). Additionally, the need for surgical management of complications was greater in the OPEN (9.5%) than the LAP group (3.1%). Besides these numbers, analysis didn't reveal statistical differences among both groups.
conclusionIn the conditions of the present manuscript, the abdominal approach used for restorative proctocolectomy doesn't seem to decisively influence outcomes after loop ileostomy reversal. In the future, analysis of a greater number of patients may probably demonstrate an expected greater complication and reoperation rates in those previously treated through OPEN procedures.
background• Ileostomy closure is an important part of the surgical treatment of FAP patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy by any approach.
background• Complication rates after loop ileostomy reversal occurred in 7% of a group of 84 FAP patients.
background• Among those operated with the laparoscopic approach, complications (4.7% x 14.2%) an reoperations (3.15% X .5%) were less common when compared to the group treated with conventional approach.
background• In the future, annalysis of a greater number of patients may probably reveal an statistical difference between these numbers, thus clearly demonstrating this great advantage of minimally invasive procedures in this group of patients.
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.