Is colonic J-pouch superior to other reconstructive techniques after total mesorectal excision? A systematic review with meta-analysis.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies Pub Date : 2025-02-17 DOI:10.1080/13645706.2025.2467040
Alberto Arezzo, Antonella Nicotera, Roberto Passera, Salvatore Pucciarelli, Edoardo Forcignanò, Steven Brown, Mario Morino
{"title":"Is colonic J-pouch superior to other reconstructive techniques after total mesorectal excision? A systematic review with meta-analysis.","authors":"Alberto Arezzo, Antonella Nicotera, Roberto Passera, Salvatore Pucciarelli, Edoardo Forcignanò, Steven Brown, Mario Morino","doi":"10.1080/13645706.2025.2467040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Different reconstruction techniques after total mesorectal excision have been described, such as straight coloanal anastomosis, colonic J-pouch, side-to-end anastomosis and transverse coloplasty pouch. Establishing which technique is the best in functional terms is essential to improving a patient's quality of life.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared benefits and harms of different reconstructive techniques. The primary outcome was to compare functional results at 18 months after surgery (long-term). Secondary outcomes were the same as primary but at different time intervals (short-term and medium-term) and perioperative morbidity and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-one reports of 36 trials were included in the analysis. According to primary outcome, no significant difference was observed in terms of bowel frequency, while colonic J-pouch resulted in a lower incidence of faecal urgency only compared to side-to-end. Only up to 18 months after bowel restoration bowel frequency, fecal urgency and the number of individuals using anti-diarrheal medications were reduced in the colonic J-pouch group. No difference in mortality/morbidity could be assessed among the techniques, but a lower rate of anastomotic leak after side-to-end compared to straight coloanal anastomosis was observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evidence suggests that reconstruction with colonic J-pouch offers similar long-term benefits to straight coloanal anastomosis and Transverse coloplasty pouch, while superior to side-to-end.</p>","PeriodicalId":18537,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2025.2467040","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Different reconstruction techniques after total mesorectal excision have been described, such as straight coloanal anastomosis, colonic J-pouch, side-to-end anastomosis and transverse coloplasty pouch. Establishing which technique is the best in functional terms is essential to improving a patient's quality of life.

Methods: We compared benefits and harms of different reconstructive techniques. The primary outcome was to compare functional results at 18 months after surgery (long-term). Secondary outcomes were the same as primary but at different time intervals (short-term and medium-term) and perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Results: Forty-one reports of 36 trials were included in the analysis. According to primary outcome, no significant difference was observed in terms of bowel frequency, while colonic J-pouch resulted in a lower incidence of faecal urgency only compared to side-to-end. Only up to 18 months after bowel restoration bowel frequency, fecal urgency and the number of individuals using anti-diarrheal medications were reduced in the colonic J-pouch group. No difference in mortality/morbidity could be assessed among the techniques, but a lower rate of anastomotic leak after side-to-end compared to straight coloanal anastomosis was observed.

Conclusions: Evidence suggests that reconstruction with colonic J-pouch offers similar long-term benefits to straight coloanal anastomosis and Transverse coloplasty pouch, while superior to side-to-end.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
39
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Minimally Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies (MITAT) is an international forum for endoscopic surgeons, interventional radiologists and industrial instrument manufacturers. It is the official journal of the Society for Medical Innovation and Technology (SMIT) whose membership includes representatives from a broad spectrum of medical specialities, instrument manufacturing and research. The journal brings the latest developments and innovations in minimally invasive therapy to its readers. What makes Minimally Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies unique is that we publish one or two special issues each year, which are devoted to a specific theme. Key topics covered by the journal include: interventional radiology, endoscopic surgery, imaging technology, manipulators and robotics for surgery and education and training for MIS.
期刊最新文献
Is colonic J-pouch superior to other reconstructive techniques after total mesorectal excision? A systematic review with meta-analysis. A new method for placental volume measurements using tracked 2D ultrasound and automatic image segmentation. A meta-analysis: laparoscopic versus open liver resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma. Camera sheath with transformable head for minimally invasive surgical instruments. Partial splenic embolization with embosphere microspheres (700-900 µm) for the treatment of hypersplenism: comparison of selective superior splenic artery embolization and inferior splenic artery embolization.
×
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