Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 288

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Results and Complications after Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of 43 Observational Studies Comprising 9,317 Patients

Open access
Hueting, Willem E., Buskens, Erik, van der Tweel, Ingeborg, Gooszen, Hein G., van Laarhoven, Cees J.H.M.·2005·Digestive Surgery

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the literature of ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) regarding complications and functional outcome, to provide audit data for individual surgeons and units to assess their own performance against and also to serve as reference standard for the assessment of novel alternatives. Background: IPAA is the standard restorative procedure for ulcerative colitis (UC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). This operation is, however, associated with distinct rates of failure, complications and fecal incontinence. Methods: A meta-analysis on pooled incidences of complications of IPAA was conducted. Medline search and cross-reference search identified studies on IPAA (n ≧ 50). Two authors independently performed the data extraction on study characteristics, diagnosis, type of operation, pouch-related complications, pouch failure and functional results. In case of disagreement consensus was reached by joint review of the study. Estimates of pouch-related complications, pouch failure and functional results are described as pooled percentages with 95% confidence interval. Results: The initial search based on 1,206 abstracts yielded 43 studies eligible for further analysis. Indications for IPAA were UC in 87.5%, FAP in 8.9% and other diagnoses in 3.6%. The median follow-up was 36.7 months. Pouch failure was 6.8%, increasing to 8.5% in case of follow-up of more than 60 months. Pelvic sepsis occurred in 9.5%. Severe, mild and urge fecal incontinence were reported in 3.7, 17, and 7.3%, respectively.No effect of experience, duration of follow-up and type of surgical technique on the incidence of pouch failure and pelvic sepsis was demonstrable. Conclusions: Current techniques for restorative surgery after proctocolectomy are associated with non-negligible complication rates and leave room for improvement and continuation of development of alternative procedures.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000085356

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 288

Metadata

Authors
Hueting, W. E., Buskens, E., van der Tweel, I., Gooszen, H. G., & van Laarhoven, C. J. H. M.
Venue
Digestive Surgery
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2005
Volume
22
Issue
1-2
Pages
69-79
ISSN
  • 0253-4886 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9883
OpenAlex
W2089841557
Cited by
288
References
14
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Results and Complications after Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of 43 Observational Studies Comprising 9,317 Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000085356
The paper
Hueting, W. E., Buskens, E., van der Tweel, I., Gooszen, H. G., & van Laarhoven, C. J. H. M. (2005). Results and Complications after Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of 43 Observational Studies Comprising 9,317 Patients. Digestive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1159/000085356

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.