Modified Two-stage Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis Results in Lower Rate of Anastomotic Leak Compared with Traditional Two-stage Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is a paucity of evidence in ulcerative colitis [UC] comparing the traditional two-stage [total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [IPAA] and diverting ileostomy, followed by ileostomy closure] vs the modified two-stage restorative proctocolectomy [subtotal colectomy with end ileostomy, followed by completion proctectomy and IPAA, without diverting ileostomy]. This study examines the risk of anastomotic leak following IPAA in traditional vs modified two-stage IPAA for UC patients. METHODS: This was a single-institution, retrospective study of all UC patients who underwent a traditional or modified two-stage IPAA between 2002 and 2013. The primary outcome was anastomotic leak following IPAA. RESULTS: In all, 460 patients had a two-stage IPAA procedure; 223 [48.5%] patients underwent traditional two-stage IPAA and 237 [51.5%] patients received the modified two-stage procedure. There was more preoperative enteral corticosteroid use [44.7% vs 33.2%, p = 0.04] before the first surgery in the modified two-stage group compared with the traditional two-stage group. The modified two-stage group had higher UC disease severity at presentation [86.9% patients with moderate/severe UC vs 73.1%, p < 0.01]. However, the modified two-stage group had a lower rate of anastomotic leak following IPAA [4.6% vs 15.7%, p < 0.01] and was associated with a lower risk of anastomotic leak on univariate (odds ratio [OR] 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13, 0.52] and multivariate analysis [OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12, 0.57]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ulcerative colitis who received the modified two-stage IPAA had a significantly lower rate of anastomotic leak following pouch creation, compared with the traditional two-stage procedure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".