Ileal pouch–anal anastomosis in the elderly: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Despite good overall outcomes in most patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), there is still hesitation about performing an IPAA in older patients due to the comorbidity burden and concern about incontinence. The aim of this work was to identify short- and long-term outcomes in older patinets undergoing IPAA to determine the perioperative safety and long-term functional success of IPAA in older patients. METHOD: A literature search was performed for all publications on IPAA in adults aged ≥50 years that reported short- and long-term outcomes. Data extraction included demographics, 30-day outcomes, long-term functional outcomes and pouch failure. Data were further separated by age group (50-65 and ≥65 years). Outcomes were compared between age groups. Study quality and risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Of 1053 publications reviewed, 13 full papers were included in the analysis. The overall 30-day morbidity and mortality rates were 47.3% and 1.3%, respectively. Thirty-day postoperative rates of small bowel obstruction and pelvic sepsis were 7.6% and 9.9%, respectively. After a median follow-up time of 62 months, rates of pouchitis, incontinence and pouch failure were 13.9%, 17.5% and 7.5%, respectively. There was no statically significant difference in rates of short- or long-term functional outcomes based on age 50-65 versus ≥65 years. CONCLUSION: Increasing age did not increase the rate of short- or long-term outcomes, including pouch failure. These data suggest that the decision for IPAA construction should not be based on age alone.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".