Postoperative complications of colectomy and J-pouch with ileostomy versus without ileostomy in children with inflammatory bowel diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The efficacy of performing a restorative proctocolectomy and J-pouch ileoanal anastomosis without diverting ileostomy in children with inflammatory bowel disease has been a longstanding debate. A systematic review and meta-analysis is presented comparing the occurrence of postoperative complications in children who underwent either the pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) with ileostomy (diverted) versus the undiverted procedure. Methods Records were sourced from CINAHL, CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. Studies followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and compared postoperative complications in pediatric patients diagnosed with inflammatory diseases aged less than 18 years who underwent J-pouch with ileostomy versus without ileostomy. The primary outcome was the occurrence of postoperative leaks, and the secondary outcomes were presence of postoperative small bowel obstruction (SBO), pouchitis, stricture and fistula complications. A random-effects meta-analysis was used. Results Twenty-three observational studies in the systematic review were included with 658 patients (83% diverted, 17% undiverted). Pooled estimates showed no difference in occurrence of leaks in children who underwent J-pouch/IPAA with ileostomy versus without (odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.64, I2=16%). There was no difference in the occurrence of SBO, pouchitis or strictures in children who underwent J-pouch/IPAA with ileostomy versus without (SBO: OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.52 to 9.92, I2=0%, pouchitis: OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.95 to 3.24, I2=0%, strictures: OR 2.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 16.69, I2=66%). Conclusion The meta-analysis did not find differences in the occurrence of complications in pediatric patients who underwent the IPAA with ileostomy procedure versus without ileostomy.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".