A Single-Center Comparative Study of Open Transabdominal and Laparoscopic Transanal Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis with Total Mesorectal Excision. Has the Bar Been Raised?

Background Most ulcerative colitis (UC) patients requiring surgery undergo transabdominal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed minimally invasively or open. Although one multicenter study demonstrated acceptably low morbidity after transanal pouch, our initial single-center experience with...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of gastrointestinal surgery 2022-05, Vol.26 (5), p.1070-1076
Hauptverfasser: Park, Lisa, Truong, Adam, Zaghiyan, Karen, Fleshner, Phillip
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1076
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1070
container_title Journal of gastrointestinal surgery
container_volume 26
creator Park, Lisa
Truong, Adam
Zaghiyan, Karen
Fleshner, Phillip
description Background Most ulcerative colitis (UC) patients requiring surgery undergo transabdominal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed minimally invasively or open. Although one multicenter study demonstrated acceptably low morbidity after transanal pouch, our initial single-center experience with transanal IPAA (ta-IPAA) was associated with an unacceptably high rate of anastomotic leak. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of ta-IPAA and transabdominal IPAA with growing experience of transanal proctectomy and determine whether one approach offered any advantage or benefit over the other. Methods Single-center series of consecutive ulcerative colitis patients underwent 3-stage IPAA, either ta-IPAA or transabdominal IPAA at a tertiary referral center. The primary outcome measure was overall complications until immediately prior to stoma closure. Secondary outcomes included postoperative clinical measures. Results The study group consisted of 113 patients, which included 37 (33%) patients undergoing transabdominal or open IPAA and 76 (67%) patients undergoing ta-IPAA. The overall complication rate was numerically higher in the ta-IPAA group (56%) compared to the transabdominal group (38%) (p = 0.07) as was the incidence of anastomotic leak in the ta-IPAA group (12 vs. 5%) (p = 0.17). Mean length of hospital stay was significantly higher in the transanal IPAA group (p = 0.04). Operating time, opioid use and pain scores were similar between groups. Conclusion Transanal IPAA has a higher incidence of overall complications and anastomotic leak compared to transabdominal IPAA. Postoperative length of stay is significantly higher in patients undergoing ta-IPAA. Operating room time, opiate use and pain scores are comparable between the two surgical approaches. Transanal IPAA appears to offer little advantage over transabdominal IPAA.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11605-021-05236-2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2618237325</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2618237325</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4cd43aaa7b9ba60b22d5118bd982936427c23bc8ad57c4f89e20cb6064cd38713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EoqXwBzggS1y4uPgjsZMT2q5aWmlREV0kbpbjzHZdJXawk378JP4lDrtQqQcu49HMM-9o_CL0ltFjRqn6mBiTtCSUM0JLLiThz9Ahq5QgheTyec5pzQgvyx8H6FVKN5QyRVn1Eh2Ioq5FVctD9GuBr5y_7oAswY8Q8TL0g4lmdLeAr8apfcBhgy8H8HgdjU-maUPvvOmw8S1emcyGZMPg7L4_ty46yPFrmOyWLOZCDmkMfUgu4Ts3bvE6jLn8BVKIYOf09N665II_xucm4XEL-MREfAJ57zfjErSfXqMXG9MleLN_j9D3s9P18pysLj9fLBcrYoUqR1LYthDGGNXUjZG04bwtGauatq54LWTBleWisZVpS2WLTVUDp7aRVOZBUSkmjtCHne4Qw88J0qh7lyx0nfEQpqS5ZBUXSvAyo--foDdhivngmZKMK5kdyBTfUTZ_VYqw0UN0vYkPmlE9G6l3RupspP5jpOZ56N1eemp6aP-N_HUuA2IHpNzy1xAfd_9H9jcJnqm0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2661276109</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Single-Center Comparative Study of Open Transabdominal and Laparoscopic Transanal Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis with Total Mesorectal Excision. Has the Bar Been Raised?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Park, Lisa ; Truong, Adam ; Zaghiyan, Karen ; Fleshner, Phillip</creator><creatorcontrib>Park, Lisa ; Truong, Adam ; Zaghiyan, Karen ; Fleshner, Phillip</creatorcontrib><description>Background Most ulcerative colitis (UC) patients requiring surgery undergo transabdominal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed minimally invasively or open. Although one multicenter study demonstrated acceptably low morbidity after transanal pouch, our initial single-center experience with transanal IPAA (ta-IPAA) was associated with an unacceptably high rate of anastomotic leak. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of ta-IPAA and transabdominal IPAA with growing experience of transanal proctectomy and determine whether one approach offered any advantage or benefit over the other. Methods Single-center series of consecutive ulcerative colitis patients underwent 3-stage IPAA, either ta-IPAA or transabdominal IPAA at a tertiary referral center. The primary outcome measure was overall complications until immediately prior to stoma closure. Secondary outcomes included postoperative clinical measures. Results The study group consisted of 113 patients, which included 37 (33%) patients undergoing transabdominal or open IPAA and 76 (67%) patients undergoing ta-IPAA. The overall complication rate was numerically higher in the ta-IPAA group (56%) compared to the transabdominal group (38%) (p = 0.07) as was the incidence of anastomotic leak in the ta-IPAA group (12 vs. 5%) (p = 0.17). Mean length of hospital stay was significantly higher in the transanal IPAA group (p = 0.04). Operating time, opioid use and pain scores were similar between groups. Conclusion Transanal IPAA has a higher incidence of overall complications and anastomotic leak compared to transabdominal IPAA. Postoperative length of stay is significantly higher in patients undergoing ta-IPAA. Operating room time, opiate use and pain scores are comparable between the two surgical approaches. Transanal IPAA appears to offer little advantage over transabdominal IPAA.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1091-255X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4626</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11605-021-05236-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34993896</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Abdomen ; Air leakage ; Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects ; Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology ; Anastomotic Leak - etiology ; Anastomotic Leak - surgery ; Colitis, Ulcerative - surgery ; Colonic Pouches - adverse effects ; Dissection ; Gastroenterology ; Gastrointestinal surgery ; Humans ; Inflammatory bowel disease ; Laparoscopy ; Laparoscopy - adverse effects ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Narcotics ; Original Article ; Ostomy ; Pain ; Patients ; Pelvis ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Postoperative Complications - surgery ; Proctocolectomy, Restorative - adverse effects ; Rectal Neoplasms - surgery ; Rectum ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgeons ; Surgery ; Surgical anastomosis ; Surgical outcomes ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2022-05, Vol.26 (5), p.1070-1076</ispartof><rights>The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2021</rights><rights>2021. The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.</rights><rights>The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4cd43aaa7b9ba60b22d5118bd982936427c23bc8ad57c4f89e20cb6064cd38713</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4cd43aaa7b9ba60b22d5118bd982936427c23bc8ad57c4f89e20cb6064cd38713</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3925-385X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11605-021-05236-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11605-021-05236-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34993896$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Park, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Truong, Adam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaghiyan, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fleshner, Phillip</creatorcontrib><title>A Single-Center Comparative Study of Open Transabdominal and Laparoscopic Transanal Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis with Total Mesorectal Excision. Has the Bar Been Raised?</title><title>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</title><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><description>Background Most ulcerative colitis (UC) patients requiring surgery undergo transabdominal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed minimally invasively or open. Although one multicenter study demonstrated acceptably low morbidity after transanal pouch, our initial single-center experience with transanal IPAA (ta-IPAA) was associated with an unacceptably high rate of anastomotic leak. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of ta-IPAA and transabdominal IPAA with growing experience of transanal proctectomy and determine whether one approach offered any advantage or benefit over the other. Methods Single-center series of consecutive ulcerative colitis patients underwent 3-stage IPAA, either ta-IPAA or transabdominal IPAA at a tertiary referral center. The primary outcome measure was overall complications until immediately prior to stoma closure. Secondary outcomes included postoperative clinical measures. Results The study group consisted of 113 patients, which included 37 (33%) patients undergoing transabdominal or open IPAA and 76 (67%) patients undergoing ta-IPAA. The overall complication rate was numerically higher in the ta-IPAA group (56%) compared to the transabdominal group (38%) (p = 0.07) as was the incidence of anastomotic leak in the ta-IPAA group (12 vs. 5%) (p = 0.17). Mean length of hospital stay was significantly higher in the transanal IPAA group (p = 0.04). Operating time, opioid use and pain scores were similar between groups. Conclusion Transanal IPAA has a higher incidence of overall complications and anastomotic leak compared to transabdominal IPAA. Postoperative length of stay is significantly higher in patients undergoing ta-IPAA. Operating room time, opiate use and pain scores are comparable between the two surgical approaches. Transanal IPAA appears to offer little advantage over transabdominal IPAA.</description><subject>Abdomen</subject><subject>Air leakage</subject><subject>Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects</subject><subject>Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology</subject><subject>Anastomotic Leak - etiology</subject><subject>Anastomotic Leak - surgery</subject><subject>Colitis, Ulcerative - surgery</subject><subject>Colonic Pouches - adverse effects</subject><subject>Dissection</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inflammatory bowel disease</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Narcotics</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Ostomy</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pelvis</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - surgery</subject><subject>Proctocolectomy, Restorative - adverse effects</subject><subject>Rectal Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Rectum</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical anastomosis</subject><subject>Surgical outcomes</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1091-255X</issn><issn>1873-4626</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EoqXwBzggS1y4uPgjsZMT2q5aWmlREV0kbpbjzHZdJXawk378JP4lDrtQqQcu49HMM-9o_CL0ltFjRqn6mBiTtCSUM0JLLiThz9Ahq5QgheTyec5pzQgvyx8H6FVKN5QyRVn1Eh2Ioq5FVctD9GuBr5y_7oAswY8Q8TL0g4lmdLeAr8apfcBhgy8H8HgdjU-maUPvvOmw8S1emcyGZMPg7L4_ty46yPFrmOyWLOZCDmkMfUgu4Ts3bvE6jLn8BVKIYOf09N665II_xucm4XEL-MREfAJ57zfjErSfXqMXG9MleLN_j9D3s9P18pysLj9fLBcrYoUqR1LYthDGGNXUjZG04bwtGauatq54LWTBleWisZVpS2WLTVUDp7aRVOZBUSkmjtCHne4Qw88J0qh7lyx0nfEQpqS5ZBUXSvAyo--foDdhivngmZKMK5kdyBTfUTZ_VYqw0UN0vYkPmlE9G6l3RupspP5jpOZ56N1eemp6aP-N_HUuA2IHpNzy1xAfd_9H9jcJnqm0</recordid><startdate>20220501</startdate><enddate>20220501</enddate><creator>Park, Lisa</creator><creator>Truong, Adam</creator><creator>Zaghiyan, Karen</creator><creator>Fleshner, Phillip</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3925-385X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220501</creationdate><title>A Single-Center Comparative Study of Open Transabdominal and Laparoscopic Transanal Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis with Total Mesorectal Excision. Has the Bar Been Raised?</title><author>Park, Lisa ; Truong, Adam ; Zaghiyan, Karen ; Fleshner, Phillip</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4cd43aaa7b9ba60b22d5118bd982936427c23bc8ad57c4f89e20cb6064cd38713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Abdomen</topic><topic>Air leakage</topic><topic>Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects</topic><topic>Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology</topic><topic>Anastomotic Leak - etiology</topic><topic>Anastomotic Leak - surgery</topic><topic>Colitis, Ulcerative - surgery</topic><topic>Colonic Pouches - adverse effects</topic><topic>Dissection</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inflammatory bowel disease</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Narcotics</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Ostomy</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pelvis</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - surgery</topic><topic>Proctocolectomy, Restorative - adverse effects</topic><topic>Rectal Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Rectum</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical anastomosis</topic><topic>Surgical outcomes</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Park, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Truong, Adam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaghiyan, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fleshner, Phillip</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Park, Lisa</au><au>Truong, Adam</au><au>Zaghiyan, Karen</au><au>Fleshner, Phillip</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Single-Center Comparative Study of Open Transabdominal and Laparoscopic Transanal Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis with Total Mesorectal Excision. Has the Bar Been Raised?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</jtitle><stitle>J Gastrointest Surg</stitle><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><date>2022-05-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1070</spage><epage>1076</epage><pages>1070-1076</pages><issn>1091-255X</issn><eissn>1873-4626</eissn><abstract>Background Most ulcerative colitis (UC) patients requiring surgery undergo transabdominal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed minimally invasively or open. Although one multicenter study demonstrated acceptably low morbidity after transanal pouch, our initial single-center experience with transanal IPAA (ta-IPAA) was associated with an unacceptably high rate of anastomotic leak. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of ta-IPAA and transabdominal IPAA with growing experience of transanal proctectomy and determine whether one approach offered any advantage or benefit over the other. Methods Single-center series of consecutive ulcerative colitis patients underwent 3-stage IPAA, either ta-IPAA or transabdominal IPAA at a tertiary referral center. The primary outcome measure was overall complications until immediately prior to stoma closure. Secondary outcomes included postoperative clinical measures. Results The study group consisted of 113 patients, which included 37 (33%) patients undergoing transabdominal or open IPAA and 76 (67%) patients undergoing ta-IPAA. The overall complication rate was numerically higher in the ta-IPAA group (56%) compared to the transabdominal group (38%) (p = 0.07) as was the incidence of anastomotic leak in the ta-IPAA group (12 vs. 5%) (p = 0.17). Mean length of hospital stay was significantly higher in the transanal IPAA group (p = 0.04). Operating time, opioid use and pain scores were similar between groups. Conclusion Transanal IPAA has a higher incidence of overall complications and anastomotic leak compared to transabdominal IPAA. Postoperative length of stay is significantly higher in patients undergoing ta-IPAA. Operating room time, opiate use and pain scores are comparable between the two surgical approaches. Transanal IPAA appears to offer little advantage over transabdominal IPAA.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>34993896</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11605-021-05236-2</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3925-385X</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1091-255X
ispartof Journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2022-05, Vol.26 (5), p.1070-1076
issn 1091-255X
1873-4626
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2618237325
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Abdomen
Air leakage
Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects
Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology
Anastomotic Leak - etiology
Anastomotic Leak - surgery
Colitis, Ulcerative - surgery
Colonic Pouches - adverse effects
Dissection
Gastroenterology
Gastrointestinal surgery
Humans
Inflammatory bowel disease
Laparoscopy
Laparoscopy - adverse effects
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Narcotics
Original Article
Ostomy
Pain
Patients
Pelvis
Postoperative Complications - epidemiology
Postoperative Complications - etiology
Postoperative Complications - surgery
Proctocolectomy, Restorative - adverse effects
Rectal Neoplasms - surgery
Rectum
Retrospective Studies
Surgeons
Surgery
Surgical anastomosis
Surgical outcomes
Treatment Outcome
title A Single-Center Comparative Study of Open Transabdominal and Laparoscopic Transanal Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis with Total Mesorectal Excision. Has the Bar Been Raised?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T19%3A48%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Single-Center%20Comparative%20Study%20of%20Open%20Transabdominal%20and%20Laparoscopic%20Transanal%20Ileal%20Pouch-Anal%20Anastomosis%20with%20Total%20Mesorectal%20Excision.%20Has%20the%20Bar%20Been%20Raised?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20gastrointestinal%20surgery&rft.au=Park,%20Lisa&rft.date=2022-05-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1070&rft.epage=1076&rft.pages=1070-1076&rft.issn=1091-255X&rft.eissn=1873-4626&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11605-021-05236-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2618237325%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2661276109&rft_id=info:pmid/34993896&rfr_iscdi=true