ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology2026
Functional and long-term outcomes of ileorectal versus ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for familial adenomatous polyposis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) or proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) are the 2 standard prophylactic surgical options for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). We aimed to compare the functional and long-term outcomes of IRA and IPAA among FAP patients. Methods: We searched large databases to identify studies evaluating the functional outcomes of prophylactic surgical modalities for FAP. The primary outcomes of interest were the functional outcomes of IRA with IPAA, including fecal incontinence, fecal urgency, use of pads for defecation, and use of antidiarrheal drugs. Secondary outcomes included the social outcomes of the 2 procedural modalities, early postoperative adverse events, and long-term adverse events. Results: Compared with IPAA, FAP patients who underwent IRA had a lower frequency of fecal incontinence (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.76; P<0.001), but were more likely to have fecal urgency (OR 1.53, 95%CI 1.08-2.15; P=0.02). There was no difference in the use of pads and antidiarrheals between the 2 groups (OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.27-1.11; P=0.09; and OR 0.83, 95%CI 0.57-1.22; P=0.35, respectively). Moreover, there was no difference in social outcomes or perioperative adverse events (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.53-2.68; P=0.68; and OR 0.73, 95%CI 0.50-1.06; P=0.10, respectively). Lastly, IRA had lower long-term complications than IPAA (OR 0.78, 95%CI 0.63-0.97; P=0.03). Conclusion: IRA has better functional outcomes regarding fecal incontinence, a better prophylactic intervention profile, and fewer long-term complications.
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.