Evidence Hub

A prospective randomized comparison of two different pelvic pouch designs

Oresland T, Fasth S, Nordgren S, Hallgren T, Hultén L

Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology, 1990

29 participants

Abstract

The clinical manovolumetric, and functional results of restorative proctocolectomy were studied in patients randomly allocated to construction of either a J-shaped pouch (n = 29) or a pouch fashioned by the folding technique used for the Kock continent ileostomy (K-pouch) (n = 26). A complete endoanal mucosectomy was performed, and the pouches were all constructed from 30-cm lengths of ileum. There were no deaths and no significant difference in postoperative morbidity. Anal pressures were equal in the two groups. The K-pouch expanded more favourably postoperatively, and its volume at 1 year was significantly greater than that of the J-pouch (355 +/- 71 ml (SD); range, 225-495, versus 264 +/- 81 ml; range, 75-440; p less than 0.001). The pouches had similar motility patterns and sensory pressure thresholds. Initially after closure of the loop ileostomy there was a tendency for better functional outcome in K-pouch patients. At 1 year the overall distribution of functional defects did not differ, and the defaecation frequency was about equal in the groups.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 29 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free