Abstract Background Global data demonstrate an inverse relationship between hospital ileoanal pouch volume and adverse outcomes, highlighting the need for quality metrics for this technically demanding procedure.1-4 Currently, there are no standardised quality indicators to define high-quality pouch surgery. This study aimed to establish international consensus on key performance indicators (KPIs) in pouch surgery. Methods A modified Delphi process was conducted among an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts. Participants were identified through professional networks, literature review, and direct email invitation; additional participants recruited via a snowball sampling approach over one month. Candidate KPIs were generated from literature review and expert input across 5 domains. Each item was rated on a 9-point Likert scale (1 = not important, 9 = critically important); consensus was predefined as ≥ 80% of respondents rating an item 7–9. Items not reaching consensus were re-rated in a second round following anonymized group feedback. Results Round 1 included 312 participants from 37 countries. Demographics (Table 1): 53% were age 45 years, 35.2% were female, and included surgeons (68.6%) and gastroenterologists (31.1%). Most (76.6%) practice at academic or university hospitals, with a median of 11 (5–17) years in practise; 78.9% perform 1 pouchoscopy per month, and 39.5% of surgeons perform 5 pouches/year. Respondents’ regions included North America (51%), Europe (26%), Oceania (9%), Asia (6%), Latin America (4%), and the Middle East/Africa (4%). Seven (18%) countries (Denmark, Lithuania, Malaysia, Norway, United Arab Emirates, Sweden, and Switzerland) reported pouch surgery is already centralised, while 70.6% agreed pouch centralisation should be implemented. Cost/logistics and professional autonomy were the most important barriers to centralisation, whereas capacity and training exposure were least important. Overall, 37/59 (62.7%) candidate KPIs reached consensus after Round 1. The Round 2 response rate was 61%, and 2 additional KPIs reached consensus (preop ileitis and long-term risk of pouchitis). Additionally, 14 of 25 (56%) informed consent items reached consensus, and 64% of respondents felt informed consent for pouch surgery requires 2 or more office visits. Consensus items were used to populate a KPIPS Checklist (Figure 1). Conclusion Through an international Delphi process, the KPIPS study identified a consensus-derived set of key performance indicators to measure quality in pouch surgery. These quality metrics provide a foundation for benchmarking outcomes and represent a critical step towards centralization and the development of designated pouch centres of excellence to improve global standards of care for pouch patients. References: 1. Worley GHT, Fearnhead NS, Brown SR, et al. Review of current practice and outcomes following ileoanal pouch surgery: Lessons learned from the ileoanal pouch registry and the 2017 ileoanal pouch report. Colorectal Dis 2018;20:913–22. 2. Giddings HL, Yang PF, Steffens D, Solomon MJ, Ng KS. Influence of hospital-level and surgeon factors on the outcomes after ileo-anal pouch surgery for inflammatory bowel disease: Systematic review. Br J Surg 2024;111. 3. Hoang CM, Maykel JA, Davids JS, et al. Distribution of elective ileal pouch-anal anastomosis cases for ulcerative colitis: A study utilizing the university health system consortium database. J Gastrointest Surg 2020;24:2613–9. 4. Moojen TB, Visser E, Reijntjes MA, et al. One-year stoma-free survival of ileoanal pouches for uc in european centers: The miracle project. Ann Surg Open 2025;6:e596. Conflict of interest: Prof. Holubar, Stefan: No conflict of interest Soop, Mattias: No conflict of interest Poskus, Tomas: No conflict of interest Neary, Peter: No conflict of interest Uchino, Tairin: No conflict of interest Yang, Song-soo: No conflict of interest Adamina, Michel: No conflict of interest Avellaneda, Nicolas Luis: No conflict of interest Barnes, Edward: No conflict of interest Brouquet, Antoine: No conflict of interest Brown, Steven Ross: No conflict of interest De Buck Van Overstraeten, Anthony: No conflict of interest Buskens, Christianne J.: No conflict of interest Chiorean, Michael: No conflict of interest Clark, David: No conflict of interest Cohen, Benjamin: No conflict of interest El Ouali, Sara: No conflict of interest Faiz, Omar Darius: No conflict of interest Fichera, Alessandro: No conflict of interest Hahnloser, Dieter: No conflict of interest Hancock, Laura: No conflict of interest Herfarth, Hans: No conflict of interest Johnston, Michael: No conflict of interest Kayal, Maia: No conflict of interest Laharie, David: No conflict of interest Liberman, Sender: No conflict of interest Loftus, Jr, Edward: No conflict of interest Moeslein, Gabriela: No conflict of interest Myrelid, Pär: No conflict of interest Poylin, Vitaliy: No conflict of interest Qazi, Taha: No conflict of interest Raffals, Laura: No conflict of interest Rubin, David T.: No conflict of interest Spinelli, Antonino: No conflict of interest Steinhagen, Emily: No conflict of interest Tozer, Philip: No conflict of interest Verstockt, Bram: No conflict of interest Warusavitarne, Janindra: No conflict of interest Wexner, Steven: No conflict of interest Winter, Desmond: No conflict of interest
Holubar et al. (2026) studied this question.