Endoscopic management of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis strictures: meta-analysis and systematic literature review.

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Annals of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-12 DOI:10.20524/aog.2024.0929
Parth Patel, Manav Patel, Mohamad Ayman Ebrahim, Priyadarshini Loganathan, Douglas G Adler
{"title":"Endoscopic management of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis strictures: meta-analysis and systematic literature review.","authors":"Parth Patel, Manav Patel, Mohamad Ayman Ebrahim, Priyadarshini Loganathan, Douglas G Adler","doi":"10.20524/aog.2024.0929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a common surgical procedure for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. IPAA strictures are a known complication, often requiring surgical intervention. Endoscopic interventions offer a less invasive alternative, but their safety and efficacy remain uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify pertinent studies. Outcomes assessed were technical success, clinical success (immediate and end of follow up), pouch failure rate and adverse events. Pooled estimates were calculated using random effects models with a 95% confidence interval.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 607 patients from 9 studies were included. Technical success, defined as the ability to pass the endoscope through the stricture, was achieved in 97.4% of patients. Immediate clinical success, defined as symptom improvement post-intervention, was seen in 44.5% of patients. Clinical success at the end of follow up was observed in 81.7% of patients. However, 6.8% of patients experienced pouch failure and ultimately 14.5% required surgical intervention for refractory strictures or complications. Endoscopic intervention-related serious adverse events occurred in 3.9% of patients, including perforation and major post-procedural bleeding.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Endoscopic interventions for IPAA strictures demonstrate high technical success rates, providing a less invasive option for managing this complication. While clinical success rates immediately post-procedure and at end of follow up are promising, a significant proportion of patients ultimately require surgical intervention for pouch failure or refractory strictures.</p>","PeriodicalId":7978,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Gastroenterology","volume":"38 1","pages":"60-67"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11724379/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2024.0929","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a common surgical procedure for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. IPAA strictures are a known complication, often requiring surgical intervention. Endoscopic interventions offer a less invasive alternative, but their safety and efficacy remain uncertain.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify pertinent studies. Outcomes assessed were technical success, clinical success (immediate and end of follow up), pouch failure rate and adverse events. Pooled estimates were calculated using random effects models with a 95% confidence interval.

Results: A total of 607 patients from 9 studies were included. Technical success, defined as the ability to pass the endoscope through the stricture, was achieved in 97.4% of patients. Immediate clinical success, defined as symptom improvement post-intervention, was seen in 44.5% of patients. Clinical success at the end of follow up was observed in 81.7% of patients. However, 6.8% of patients experienced pouch failure and ultimately 14.5% required surgical intervention for refractory strictures or complications. Endoscopic intervention-related serious adverse events occurred in 3.9% of patients, including perforation and major post-procedural bleeding.

Conclusions: Endoscopic interventions for IPAA strictures demonstrate high technical success rates, providing a less invasive option for managing this complication. While clinical success rates immediately post-procedure and at end of follow up are promising, a significant proportion of patients ultimately require surgical intervention for pouch failure or refractory strictures.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
回肠袋-肛门吻合口狭窄的内镜治疗:荟萃分析和系统文献综述。
背景:回肠袋-肛门吻合术(IPAA)是治疗溃疡性结肠炎和家族性腺瘤性息肉病的常用手术方法。IPAA狭窄是一种已知的并发症,通常需要手术干预。内窥镜干预提供了一种侵入性较小的替代方法,但其安全性和有效性仍不确定。方法:进行全面的文献检索,以确定相关研究。评估的结果包括技术成功、临床成功(即时和随访结束)、眼袋失败率和不良事件。合并估计使用随机效应模型计算,置信区间为95%。结果:9项研究共纳入607例患者。技术上的成功,定义为内窥镜通过狭窄的能力,97.4%的患者获得了成功。44.5%的患者立即获得临床成功,定义为干预后症状改善。随访结束时,81.7%的患者临床成功。然而,6.8%的患者经历了眼袋衰竭,最终14.5%的患者因难治性狭窄或并发症需要手术干预。内镜介入相关严重不良事件发生率为3.9%,包括穿孔和术后大出血。结论:内窥镜介入治疗IPAA狭窄的技术成功率很高,为治疗这种并发症提供了一种侵入性较小的选择。虽然术后立即和随访结束时的临床成功率是有希望的,但很大一部分患者最终需要手术干预眼袋失败或难治性狭窄。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Gastroenterology
Annals of Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊最新文献
Authors' reply. Clinical features and outcomes of total pancreatic lipomatosis with chronic pancreatitis: a case series. Endoscopic management of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis strictures: meta-analysis and systematic literature review. Gastrointestinal cancer incidence after lung transplantation in sarcoidosis patients. Landscape of B lymphocytes and plasma cells in digestive tract carcinomas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1