4.7 Review

Cumulative Incidence of Second Intestinal Resection in Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 109, 期 11, 页码 1739-1748

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.297

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alberta IBD Consortium - Alberta-Innovates Health-Solutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 50% of Crohn's disease patients undergo an intestinal resection within 10 years of diagnosis. The risk of second surgery in Crohn's disease and the influence of time are not well characterized. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish the risk of second abdominal surgery in patients with Crohn's disease among patients who had a previous surgery. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, PubMed (March 2014), and conference proceedings for terms related to Crohn's disease and intestinal surgery. We included population-based articles (n = 11) and an abstract (n = 1) reporting surgical risk for the overall study period and for 5 and 10 years after the first surgery for Crohn's disease. We stratified studies by year (start year before vs. after 1980) to explore the role of time. RESULTS: For all population-based studies, the overall risk of second surgery was 28.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 22.6-36.6%). The 5-year risk of second surgery was 24.2% (95% CI: 22.3-26.4%). The 10-year risk of second surgery was 35.0% (95% CI: 31.8-38.6%). A significant difference in the 10-year risk of second surgery was observed over time such that studies conducted after 1980 had a lower risk of second surgery (33.2%; 95% CI: 31.2-35.4%) compared with those that started before 1980 (44.6%; 95% CI: 37.7-52.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-quarter of Crohn's disease patients who have a first surgery also have a second, and the majority of these surgeries occur within 5 years of the first surgery. The 10-year risk of second surgery is significantly decreasing over time.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据