Evaluating Quality of Life in Surgically Treated IBD Patients: A Systematic Review of Physical, Emotional and Social Impacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Inflammatory Bowel Disease, including Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis, affects patients’ Quality of Life through various and complex chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. When medical treatment protocols are ineffective, surgical options like a colectomy, ileostomy, or Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis may be necessary, offering symptom relief but presenting new psychological, emotional, and social issues. Objectives: This systematic review evaluates the impact of surgery on quality of life in Inflammatory Bowel Disease patients from 2018 to 2023, focusing on physical, emotional and social outcomes as well as long-term quality of life predictors. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for studies assessing Quality of Life in surgically treated Inflammatory Bowel Disease patients, including physical and psychological outcomes. Non-English studies were excluded. Risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane and Newcastle–Ottawa tools, with data synthesized narratively and via random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Of 2450 records screened, 58 studies (45 in meta-analysis) were included, covering colectomy, ileostomy and Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis. Surgery significantly improved physical quality of life in 90% of patients, but psychological and social challenges persisted, with 38% reporting body image issues and 34% experiencing social isolation. Psychological support improved emotional quality of life by 20–30%. Long-term quality of life varied, with IPAA patients showing higher satisfaction (70% at 5 years) than Crohn’s Disease patients with resections. Conclusions: Surgery enhances physical quality of life in Inflammatory Bowel Disease patients, but requires multidisciplinary care to address persistent psychological and social challenges, ensuring optimal long-term outcomes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".