Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther. Jun 5, 2026; 17(2): 118778
Published online Jun 5, 2026. doi: 10.4292/wjgpt.v17.i2.118778
Published online Jun 5, 2026. doi: 10.4292/wjgpt.v17.i2.118778
Table 4 Two-stage vs three-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis
| Feature | Two-stage IPAA | Three-stage IPAA |
| Typical sequence | Proctocolectomy + IPAA + diverting ileostomy → ileostomy closure | Subtotal colectomy + end ileostomy → completion proctectomy + IPAA + DI → closure |
| Usual candidates | Medically optimized, lower-risk, stable patients | Acute severe colitis, high-dose steroids, biologic rescue, malnutrition |
| Short-term morbidity | Comparable to 3-stage in modern series | Comparable; offers safer route in very sick patients |
| Pouch failure/leak | No significant difference vs 3-stage | No significant difference vs 2-stage |
| Quality of life after closure | Similar global and functional PROs between strategies | Similar global and functional PROs |
- Citation: Agrawal H, Gupta N. Surgical interventions in inflammatory bowel disease: Indications, techniques, outcomes, and future directions. World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther 2026; 17(2): 118778
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2150-5349/full/v17/i2/118778.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4292/wjgpt.v17.i2.118778