4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Risk factors for surgical recurrence after ileocolic resection of Crohn's disease

期刊

DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM
卷 51, 期 8, 页码 1211-1216

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1007/s10350-008-9348-7

关键词

Crohn's disease; ileocolic resection; postoperative recurrence

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [P30 DK052574, T35 DK074375-01, T35 DK074375, P30 DK052574-08, P30 DK52574] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: We evaluated the effect of potential clinical factors on surgical recurrence of ileal Crohn's disease after initial ileocolic resection. METHODS: One hundred seventy-six patients with ileal Crohn's disease who underwent an ileocolic resection with anastomosis were identified from our database. The outcome of interest was time from first to second ileocolic resection. Survival analysis was used to assess the significance of the Montreal phenotype classification, smoking habit, a family history of inflammatory bowel disease and other clinical variables. RESULTS: In our final Cox model, a family history of inflammatory bowel disease (hazard ratio 2.24, 95 percent confidence interval 1.16-4.30, P = 0.016), smoking at time of initial ileocolic resection (hazard ratio 2.08, 95 percent confidence interval 1.11-3.91, P = 0.023) was associated with an increased risk of a second ileocolic resection while postoperative prescription of immunomodulators (hazard ratio 0.40, 95 percent confidence interval 0.18-0.88, P = 0.022) was associated with a decreased risk of a second ileocolic resection. CONCLUSIONS: Both a family history of inflammatory bowel disease and smoking at the time of the initial ileocolic resection are associated with an increased risk of a second ileocolic resection. Postoperative prescription of immunomodulators is associated with a reduced risk of surgical recurrence. This study supports the concept that both genetic and environmental factors influence the risk of surgical recurrence of ileal Crohn's disease.

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

4.5
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