ReviewSurgery open science2025
Mesenteric inclusion in Crohn's disease surgery: Promising breakthrough or tempest in a teapot? An updated meta-analysis.
Review in Surgery open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Essential Updates in the Surgical Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Current Topics From 2024 to Mid-2026.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recently, renewed concern has been centered on the role of the mesentery in the development of Crohn's disease (CD). However, there are minimal data supporting the extended mesenteric excision (EME), which may lead to reticence in the adoption of this surgical option. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the post-operative outcomes in patients undergoing EME vs limited mesenteric excision (LME) for CD. Methods: We conducted a systematic search from January 2018 to January 2025 for studies reporting outcomes in patients undergoing EME compared with LME for CD. A pooled meta-analysis was performed. The risk of bias was examined using the ROBINS-I v2 and RoB2 tool. Results: Nine studies were included in final analysis, comprising two randomized controlled trials, enrolling a total of 4823 patients. Definitions of EME differ, with some studies preserving the ileocolic trunk and others resecting the mesentery with proximal ligation. No significant difference in surgical or endoscopic recurrence was observed between EME and LME. Concerning secondary outcomes, including overall morbidity, intra-abdominal abscess, anastomotic leak and hospital stay, the two groups showed no significant differences. Conclusions: EME appears as safe as the LME in terms of morbidity, but does not significantly reduce surgical or endoscopic recurrence. Due to the absence of a precise definition of the EME procedure in CD and the need of further high-quality research, the approach of EME still lacks sufficient validation and cannot be broadly recommended for routine clinical practice.
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.