| Literature DB >> 28776001 |
Mirzafaraz Saeed1, Hari Hullur2, Amro Salem1, Abbas Ali2, Yousif Sahib2, Mobeen Ashfaq2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcome of introduction of early surgery in the course of isolated ileocecal Crohn's disease, where there is no absolute indication of surgery.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28776001 PMCID: PMC5523538 DOI: 10.1155/2017/4396573
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Surg Res Pract ISSN: 2356-6124
Figure 1Indications for surgery in the study's sampled patients.
Summarised demographic data regarding patients in the study sample.
| Average | Maximum | Minimum | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 28.2 | 47 | 16 |
| Disease duration | 19.8 | 38 | 2 |
| Time between diagnosis and surgery | 6.4 | 13 | 1 |
| Follow-up | 13.5 | 24 | 2 |
Absolute values of biochemical parameters.
| Absolute values | CRP | ESR | Hb | WBC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average preop | 113.6 | 55.7 | 10.1 ( | 10245 |
| Average postop | 21.8 | 42.7 | 11.1 | 7849 |
| Average follow-up | 5.0 | 20.6 | 12.8 | 7144 |
Figure 2Comparative chart displaying the improvements in the values of the measured values.
Percentage difference between preop to postop values and preop to follow-up values.
| Average percentage improvement | CRP | ESR | Hb | WBC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preop to postop (max/min) | 71.5% | 36.9% | 12.2% | 17.4% |
| Preop to follow-up (max/min) | 85.5% | 64.3% | 29.3% | 24.0% |
Figure 3Mean percentage improvements in all the measured parameters.
Summary table containing the means at the three data collection points, their standard deviations, and the relevant F-value and p value for each biochemical marker.
| CRP | ESR | Hb | WBC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preop mean ± SD | 113.5 ± 116.5 | 55 ± 33.9 | 10.0 ± 2.1 | 10245 ± 4459 |
| Postop mean ± SD | 21.8 ± 33.2 | 36.2 ± 27.0 | 11.1 ± 2.1 | 7849 ± 2496 |
| Mean at follow-up ± SD | 5.0 ± 4.7 | 18.5 ± 23.4 | 12.7 ± 2.2 | 7144 ± 2191 |
|
| 8.3 | 8.5 | 19.8 | 8.9 |
|
| 0.013 | 0.019 | <0.001 | 0.002 |
Patients with missing data are excluded from comparative analysis in a repeated measures ANOVA, thus explaining any disparities between means in Tables 4 and 2.