title: A comparison of segmental vs subtotal/total colectomy for colonic Crohn's disease: a meta-analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Using meta-analytical techniques the present study evaluated differences in short-term and long-term outcomes of adult patients with colonic Crohn's disease who underwent either colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) or segmental colectomy (SC).
  
  
  METHODS
  Comparative studies published between 1988 and 2002, of subtotal/total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis vs segmental colectomy, were used. The study end points included were surgical and overall recurrence, time to recurrence, postoperative morbidity and incidence of permanent stoma. Random and fixed-effect meta-analytical models were used to evaluate the study outcomes. Sensitivity analysis, funnel plot and meta-regressive techniques were carried out to explain the heterogeneity and selection bias between the studies.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Six studies, consisting of a total of 488 patients (223 IRA and 265 SC) were included. Analysis of the data suggested that there was no significant difference between IRA and SC in recurrence of Crohn's disease. Time to recurrence was longer in the IRA group by 4.4 years (95% CI: 3.1-5.8), P < 0.001. There was no difference between the incidence of postoperative complications (OR = 1.4., 95% CI 0.16-12.74) or the need for a permanent stoma between the two groups (OR = 2.75, 95% CI 0.78-9.71). Patients with two or more colonic segments involved were associated with lower re-operation rate in the IRA group, a difference which did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.177).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Both procedures were equally effective as treatment options for colonic Crohn's disease however, patients in the SC group exhibited recurrence earlier than those in the IRA group. The choice of operation is dependent on the extent of colonic disease, with a trend towards better outcomes with IRA for two or more colonic segments involved. Since no prospective randomised study has been undertaken, a clear view about which approach is more suitable for localised colonic Crohn's disease cannot be obtained.
authors.affiliation: Imperial College London, Department of Surgical Oncology and Technology, UK. p.tekkis@imperial.ac.uk
authors.forename: P P
authors.initials: PP
authors.lastname: Tekkis
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Purkayastha
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Lanitis
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Athanasiou
authors.forename: A G
authors.initials: AG
authors.lastname: Heriot
authors.forename: T R
authors.initials: TR
authors.lastname: Orchard
authors.forename: R J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Nicholls
authors.forename: A W
authors.initials: AW
authors.lastname: Darzi
mesh_terms: D003082:Colectomy / Q000379:methods*; D003424:Crohn Disease / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans