Search

Purpose: To achieve excellent postoperative bowel function in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) patients, it is important to reconstruct the digestive tract. The aim of this study is to preliminarily discuss the advantages of total proctocolectomy with straight ileoanal anastomosis (TPC-SIAA) plus pedicled omental transposition for FAP. Methods: A retrospective study was carried out in two hospitals analysing data for FAP patients who underwent surgical treatments between 2015 and 2021. Perioperative outcomes and early and mid-term anal functions were analysed. Results: After excluding 4 patients who underwent total proctocolectomy with permanent ileostomy, 10 patients were enrolled in the study. Among the 10 patients, 3 received TPC-SIAA plus pedicled omental transposition, 3 received total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (TPC-IPAA), and 4 received total colectomy with ileal pouch-rectal anastomosis (TC-IPRA). Except for one case conversion to laparotomy, laparoscopic surgery was performed for the other cases. The incidence of early postoperative complications was apparently higher with pouch anastomosis (57.1%) than straight anastomosis (0%). Frequencies of bowel movement and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score were higher for TPC-SIAA than the other two surgical procedures in the early term; over time, however, the frequencies of bowel movement and LARS score both showed a decreasing trend. In addition, combined with anorectal pressure detection and magnetic resonance imaging defecography at the 3rd month after TPC-SIAA plus pedicled omental transposition, defecation coordination was good. The dynamics and receptivity of the new rectum tended to be as expected. Conclusion: Although the three surgical procedures are safe and feasible surgical options for FAP, TPC-SIAA plus pedicled omental transposition is more consistent with intestinal physiology, with good intestinal compliance, and anal function tended to be as expected over time. Nevertheless, more extensive studies are needed to confirm these benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A network meta‐analysis (NMA) including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation. Studies were collected from online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies were further examined in the NMA to compare the effect of 14 interventions on smoking cessation. Thirty‐four studies were examined in the NMA, including a total of 14 interventions and 28 733 participants. The results showed that health education (HE; odds ratio ([OR] = 200.29, 95% CI [1.62, 24 794.61])), other interventions (OI; OR = 29.79, 95% CI [1.07, 882.17]) and multimodal interventions (MUIs; OR = 100.16, 95% CI [2.06, 4867.24]) were better than self‐help material (SHM). HE (OR = 243.31, 95% CI [1.39, 42531.33]), MUI (OR = 121.67, 95% CI [1.64, 9004.86]) and financial incentive (FI; OR = 14.09, 95% CI [1.21, 164.31]) had positive effects on smoking cessation rate than smoking cessation or quitting APP (QA). Ranking results showed that HE (83.6%) and motivation interviewing (MI; 69.6%) had better short‐term effects on smoking cessation. HE and MUI provided more smoking cessation benefits than SHM and QA. FI was more effective at quitting smoking than QA. Also, HE and MI were more likely to be optimal smoking cessation interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]