Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9230807›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of surgery1997

Randomized prospective trial comparing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis performed by excising the anal mucosa to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis performed by preserving the anal mucosa.

W T Reilly, J H Pemberton, B G Wolff, S Nivatvongs, R M Devine, W J Litchy, P B McIntyre

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of surgery, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 170 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Psychosocial factors associated with j-pouch surgery for patients with IBD: a scoping review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Medical and Surgical Management of Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2018
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Adenocarcinoma of the ileal pouch mucosa: case report and literature review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2015
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Does mesorectal preservation protect the ileoanal anastomosis after restorative proctocolectomy?Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2009
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

W T ReillyEyvazzadeh Colon and Rectal Center, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA.
J H Pemberton
B G Wolff
S Nivatvongs
R M Devine
W J Litchy
P B McIntyre
Mayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of the study is to compare the results of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) in patients in whom the anal mucosa is excised by handsewn techniques to those in whom the mucosa is preserved using stapling techniques. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is the operation of choice for patients with chronic ulcerative colitis requiring proctocolectomy. Controversy exists over whether preserving the transitional mucosa of the anal canal improves outcomes.

methodsForty-one patients (23 men, 18 women) were randomized to either endorectal mucosectomy and handsewn IPAA or to double-stapled IPAA, which spared the anal transition zone. All patients were diverted for 2 to 3 months. Nine patients were excluded. Preoperative functional status was assessed by questionnaire and anal manometry. Twenty-four patients underwent more extensive physiologic evaluation, including scintigraphic anopouch angle studies and pudendel never terminal motor latency a mean of 6 months after surgery. Quality of life similarly was estimated before surgery and after surgery. Univariate analysis using Wilcoxon test was used to assess differences between groups.

resultsThe two groups were identical demographically. Overall outcomes in both groups were good. Thirty-three percent of patients who underwent the handsewn technique and 35% of patients who underwent the double-stapled technique experienced a postoperative complication. Resting anal canal pressures were higher in the patients who underwent the stapled technique, but other physiologic parameters were similar between groups. Night-time fecal incontinence occurred less frequently in the stapled group but not significantly. The number of stools per 24 hours decreased from preoperative values in both groups. After IPAA, quality of life improved promptly in both groups.

conclusionsStapled IPAA, which preserves the mucosa of the anal transition zone, confers no apparent early advantage in terms of decreased stool frequency or fewer episodes of fecal incontinence compared to handsewn IPAA, which excises the mucosa. Higher resting pressures in the stapled group coupled with a trend toward less night-time incontinence, however, may portend better function in the stapled group over time. Both operations are safe and result in rapid and profound improvement in quality of life.

Indexed as

Surgical StaplingSuturesAdultAnal CanalColitis, UlcerativeFecal IncontinenceFemaleHumansIntestinal MucosaMaleManometryPostoperative ComplicationsProctocolectomy, RestorativeProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRadionuclide Imaging

Identifiers

PMID9230807
PMCPMC1190866
OpenAlexW1966573969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.