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
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.

直肠全系膜切除术后结肠j -袋是否优于其他重建技术?荟萃分析的系统综述。
背景:直肠全系膜切除术后不同的重建技术,如直结肠肛管吻合、结肠j型袋、侧端吻合和横向结肠成形术袋。确定哪种技术在功能上是最好的,对于提高病人的生活质量至关重要。方法:比较不同修复方法的利弊。主要结局是比较术后18个月(长期)的功能结果。次要结局与主要结局相同,但在不同的时间间隔(短期和中期)和围手术期发病率和死亡率。结果:36项试验的41份报告被纳入分析。根据主要结局,在排便频率方面没有观察到显著差异,而结肠j -袋仅与侧对端相比导致大便急迫性发生率较低。仅在肠恢复后18个月,结肠j袋组的排便频率、粪便紧迫性和使用抗腹泻药物的人数都有所减少。两种方法的死亡率/发病率无差异,但侧端吻合术的吻合口漏率较直口吻合低。结论:有证据表明,结肠j -袋重建与直结肠肛管吻合术和横结肠成形术的远期疗效相似,但优于侧对端。
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 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信