Pouch excision: indications and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis is the procedure of choice for ulcerative colitis. Unfortunately, up to 10% of pouches will fail, requiring either reconstruction or excision. While several series have reported on the aetiology of pouch failure, no study to date has focused on the postoperative complications associated with pouch excision. METHODS: Patients who had excision of ileoanal reservoir with ileostomy (CPT code 45136) were included. Data abstracted included preoperative, operative and postoperative variables. A Kaplan-Meier curve of pouch survival was performed. RESULTS: In all, 147 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. The median age of patients was 47 years (73 women), and 132 had a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis at the time of colectomy. The most common indications for pouch excision were sepsis (n = 46; 31%) and Crohn's disease (n = 37; 25%). 84 (57%) patients experienced short-term (< 30 days) postoperative complications, the most common of which was a surgical site infection (n = 32; 21%); 55 (37%) patients had long-term complications (> 30 days) postoperatively, the most common of which was a return to the operating room (n = 19; 13%) largely for perineal wounds. Thirty-day mortality was zero. 4.8%, 47.6%, 65.3% and 84.4% of patients had undergone pouch excision by 1, 5, 10 and 20 years from the time of pouch construction, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pouch excision has a high rate of both short- and long-term postoperative complications. Patients should be appropriately counselled to set expectations accordingly. In view of these findings we suggest that this operation should ideally be performed at a high volume centre with the availability of a multidisciplinary surgical team.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".