S H Emile1,2, S M Khan3, E Silva-Alvarenga4, Z Garoufalia4, S D Wexner4. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA. sameh200@hotmail.com. 2. Colorectal Surgery Unit, General Surgery Department, Mansoura University Hospitals, Mansoura, Egypt. sameh200@hotmail.com. 3. Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan. 4. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is commonly used to restore gastrointestinal continuity after surgical treatment of mucosal ulcerative colitis (MUC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). The aim of the present systematic review was to compare the outcomes of patients with MUC and patients with FAP who underwent IPAA. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic review was performed. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through December 2021. Cohort and randomized studies were eligible for inclusion if they directly compared patients with MUC and FAP who underwent IPAA. The main outcome measures were pouch failure, complications, and need for pouch excision or revision. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias across the studies. A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (9200 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Seven thousand nine hundred fifty (86.4%) had MUC and 1250 (13.6%) had FAP. The median age of patients was 33.1 years. The male to female ratio was 1.4:1. MUC had higher odds of pouchitis (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.8-5.4, p < 0.001), stricture (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.25-2.65, p = 0.002), fistula (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.18-2.54, p = 0.004), and total complications (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.3-2.77, p < 0.001) as compared to FAP. Both groups had similar odds of pelvic sepsis, leakage, pouch failure, excision, revision, and fecal incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with MUC undergoing IPAA may be at a higher risk of developing complications, particularly pouchitis, stricture, and fistula; the ultimate and functional outcome of the pouch is similar to patients with FAP. Pouch failure, excision and revision were similar in the two groups.
BACKGROUND: Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is commonly used to restore gastrointestinal continuity after surgical treatment of mucosal ulcerative colitis (MUC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). The aim of the present systematic review was to compare the outcomes of patients with MUC and patients with FAP who underwent IPAA. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic review was performed. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through December 2021. Cohort and randomized studies were eligible for inclusion if they directly compared patients with MUC and FAP who underwent IPAA. The main outcome measures were pouch failure, complications, and need for pouch excision or revision. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias across the studies. A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (9200 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Seven thousand nine hundred fifty (86.4%) had MUC and 1250 (13.6%) had FAP. The median age of patients was 33.1 years. The male to female ratio was 1.4:1. MUC had higher odds of pouchitis (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.8-5.4, p < 0.001), stricture (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.25-2.65, p = 0.002), fistula (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.18-2.54, p = 0.004), and total complications (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.3-2.77, p < 0.001) as compared to FAP. Both groups had similar odds of pelvic sepsis, leakage, pouch failure, excision, revision, and fecal incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with MUC undergoing IPAA may be at a higher risk of developing complications, particularly pouchitis, stricture, and fistula; the ultimate and functional outcome of the pouch is similar to patients with FAP. Pouch failure, excision and revision were similar in the two groups.
Authors: A Mark-Christensen; R Erichsen; S Brandsborg; F R Pachler; C B Nørager; N Johansen; J H Pachler; O Thorlacius-Ussing; M D Kjaer; N Qvist; L Preisler; J Hillingsø; J Rosenberg; S Laurberg Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: R R Dozois; K A Kelly; D R Welling; H Gordon; R W Beart; B G Wolff; J H Pemberton; D M Ilstrup Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-12
Authors: Matthew J Page; Joanne E McKenzie; Patrick M Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Tammy C Hoffmann; Cynthia D Mulrow; Larissa Shamseer; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Elie A Akl; Sue E Brennan; Roger Chou; Julie Glanville; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Manoj M Lalu; Tianjing Li; Elizabeth W Loder; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Steve McDonald; Luke A McGuinness; Lesley A Stewart; James Thomas; Andrea C Tricco; Vivian A Welch; Penny Whiting; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-03-29