Revisional and Reconstructive Surgery for Failing IPAA is Associated with Good Function and Pouch Salvage in Highly Selected Patients

Conversion of Failed J-Pouch to Kock Pouch: Indications, Contraindications, and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The IPAA has been successful in restoring intestinal continuity and preserving continence in the majority of patients requiring a proctocolectomy. However, a subset of individuals experience significant complications that might result in pouch failure. The conversion of the J-pouch to a continent ileostomy pouch represents a significant surgical procedure. In this article, we discuss the indications and contraindications, present the technical principles applied for the conversion, and describe the outcomes of such conversion in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective during the conversion of the J-pouch to a continent ileostomy is the creation of a sufficiently sized reservoir with a high-quality valve mechanism while preserving as much small bowel as possible.

CONCLUSIONS

The conversion of the J-pouch to a continent ileostomy represents a significant surgical procedure. When performed in centers of expertise, it can be a good option for patients who otherwise will require an end ileostomy. Indications for conversion include most cases of J-pouch failure, with a few important exceptions. See video from symposium .

Third Time's the Charm? Indications and Outcomes for Redo-Redo IPAA

BACKGROUND

Up to 20% to 40% cases of redo IPAA procedures will result in pouch failure. Whether to offer a second redo procedure to maintain intestinal continuity remains a controversial decision.

OBJECTIVE

To report our institutional experience of second redo IPAA procedures.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review. Patient-reported outcomes were compared between patients undergoing second redo procedures and those undergoing first redo procedures using propensity score matching to balance the 2 cohorts.

SETTINGS

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent second redo IPAA procedures between 2004 and 2021 were included in this study.

INTERVENTIONS

Second redo IPAA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pouch survival and patient-reported outcomes were measured using the Cleveland Global Quality of Life survey.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were included (65% women), 20 (87%) with an index diagnosis of ulcerative colitis and 3 (13%) with indeterminate colitis. The final diagnosis was changed to Crohn's disease in 8 (35%) cases. The indication for pouch salvage was the same for the first and second redo procedures in 21 (91%) cases: 20 (87%) patients had both redo IPAAs for septic complications. After a median follow-up of 39 months (interquartile range, 18.5-95.5 months), pouch failure occurred in 8 (30%) cases (7 cases due to sepsis, of whom 3 never had their stoma closed, and 1 case due to poor function); all patients who experienced pouch failure underwent the second redo procedure due to septic complications. Overall pouch survival at 3 years was 76%: 62.5% in patients with a final diagnosis of Crohn's disease versus 82.5% in patients with ulcerative/indeterminate colitis ( p = 0.09). Overall quality-of-life score (0-1) was 0.6 (0.5-0.8). Quality of life and functional outcomes were comparable between first and second redo procedures, except incontinence, which was higher in second redo procedures.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center retrospective review.

CONCLUSIONS

A second pouch salvage procedure may be offered with acceptable outcomes to selected patients with high motivation to keep intestinal continuity. See Video Abstract .

LA TERCERA ES LA VENCIDA INDICACIONES Y RESULTADOS DE LA RERECONFECCION DE LA ANASTOMOSIS ANAL CON BOLSA ILEAL

ANTECEDENTES:Hasta un 20-40% de los casos de rehacer anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal (IPAA) resultarán en falla de la bolsa. La posibilidad de ofrecer un segundo procedimiento para mantener la continuidad intestinal sigue siendo una decisión controvertida.OBJETIVO:Reportar nuestra experiencia institucional de una segunda re-confección de la anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal.DISEÑO:Revisión retrospectiva; los resultados informados por los pacientes se compararon entre los pacientes que se sometieron a una segunda re-confeccion con los de los pacientes que se sometieron a una la primera re-confeccion utilizando el puntaje de propensión para equilibrar las dos cohortes.AJUSTES ENTORNO CLINICO:Centro de referencia terciario.PACIENTES:Pacientes que se sometieron a una segunda re-confeccion de de la anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal entre 2004 y 2021.INTERVENCIONES:Segunda re-confeccion de la anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Supervivencia de la bolsa, resultados informados por los pacientes medidos mediante la encuesta Cleveland Global Quality of Life.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron veintitrés pacientes (65% mujeres), 20 (87%) con diagnóstico inicial de colitis ulcerosa y 3 (13%) con colitis indeterminada. El diagnóstico final se cambió a enfermedad de Crohn en ocho (35%) casos. La indicación para el rescate de la bolsa fue la misma para la primera y segunda re-confeccion en 21 (91%) casos: 20 (87%) pacientes tuvieron ambas re-confecciones de la anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal por complicaciones sépticas. Después de una mediana de seguimiento de 39 meses (RIC 18,5 - 95,5), se produjo falla de la bolsa en 8 (30%) casos (7 casos debido a sepsis, de los cuales 3 nunca cerraron el estoma y 1 caso debido a una mala función); todos los pacientes que experimentaron falla de la bolsa se sometieron a una segunda re-confeccion debido a complicaciones sépticas. La supervivencia global de la bolsa a los 3 años fue del 76%: 62,5% en pacientes con diagnóstico final de enfermedad de Crohn, versus 82,5% en colitis ulcerativa/indeterminada ( p = 0,09). La puntuación general de calidad de vida (0 -1) fue 0,6 (0,5 - 0,8). La calidad de vida y los resultados funcionales fueron comparables entre la primera y la segunda re-confeccion, excepto la incontinencia, que fue mayor en la segunda re-confeccion.LIMITACIONES:Revisión retrospectiva de un solo centro.CONCLUSIONES:Se puede ofrecer un segundo procedimiento de rescate de la bolsa con resultados aceptables a pacientes seleccionados con alta motivación para mantener la continuidad intestinal. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Ouch, my pouch! a clinician's guide to pouchitis

Pouchitis is defined as inflammation of the ileal pouch created during a restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Although the incidence of this inflammatory condition is high, the exact etiology often remains unclear and the management challenging. In this review, we summarize the clinical presentation, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of this common complication.

Comparing continent ileostomy (CI) conversion to repair/redo IPAA: favorable outcomes

PURPOSE

This study aims to compare the outcomes of repair/redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (repair/redo-IPAA) with the conversion of IPAA to continent ileostomy (CI) in an effort to prevent the need for a permanent ileostomy (IS) following IPAA failure.

METHODS

This research involved a retrospective analysis of surgical records, employing descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

Among 57 patients with an IPAA, up to three revisions were necessary due to complications or complete failure. Ultimately, repair/redo-IPAA preserved the IPAA in 14 patients (24.6%), conversion to CI salvaged the pouch in 21 patients (36.8%), and IS was unavoidable in 22 patients (38.6%). The cumulative probability of requiring conversion surgery was calculated to be 54.0% at 20 years, thereby reducing the cumulative risk of IS to 32.3%. The 20-year cumulative probability of pouch salvage by repair/redo IPAA was only 21.9%. However, this rate increased to 67.7% when conversion procedures were considered. Following repair/redo-IPAA, only 8.3% of patients reported evacuation frequencies of ≤ 4 during the day, and 16.7% were evacuation-free at night. In contrast, after conversion to CI, 98.0% of patients reported a maximum of four evacuations in a 24-h period. After undergoing repair/redo IPAA, between half and two-thirds of patients reported experiencing incontinence or soiling, while complete continence was achieved in all patients following conversion to CI. Notably, the majority of patients expressed overall satisfaction with their respective procedures. A positive correlation was identified between very high subjective satisfaction and positive objective surgical outcomes exclusively in patients who underwent conversion to CI.

CONCLUSION

When complications or failure of IPAA occur, conversion to CI emerges as a highly viable alternative to repair/redo IPAA. This conclusion is supported by the observation that patient satisfaction appears to be closely tied to stable surgical outcomes. To reinforce these findings, further prospective studies are warranted.

Redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for early versus late sepsis-related pouch failure

BACKGROUND

Pouch failure after restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis occurs in 5% to 15% of cases, mostly due to septic complications. We aimed to determine if the timing of pouch failure impacted long-term outcomes for redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis after sepsis-related complications.

METHOD

We retrospectively analyzed our prospectively collected institutional pouch database. Patients who underwent redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for septic complications between 1988 and 2020 were divided into an early (pouch failure within 6 months of stoma closure after index operation, or stoma never closed) and a late failure group (pouch failure after 6 months of stoma closure). The primary endpoint was pouch survival.

RESULTS

In total, 335 patients were included: 241 (72%) in the early and 94 (28%) in the late failure group. The most common indication for failure was an anastomotic leak in the early failure group (163, 68%) and fistula in the late failure group (59, 63%), P < .001. Pouch survival at 3, 5, and 10 years was 77%, 75%, and 72% for the early and 79%, 75%, and 68% for the late failure group (P = .94). The most common reason for redo pouch failure was fistula in both groups. Quality of life was similar in both groups. In multivariate analysis, the only factor associated with pouch failure was the final diagnosis of Crohn's disease.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes after redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis were comparable between patients with early and late sepsis-related index pouch failure, with acceptable rates of long-term pouch survival and good quality of life.

Transabdominal IPAA Revision: Does Indication Dictate Outcome?

BACKGROUND

Following IPAA failure, select patients are eligible for IPAA revision. Presently, there is limited evidence describing long-term revision outcomes and predictors of revision failure. This represents an important knowledge gap when selecting and counseling patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to define long-term IPAA survival outcomes after transabdominal IPAA revision and identify preoperative clinical factors associated with revision failure.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

This study included all patients who underwent revisional IPAA surgery between 1982 and 2017 for pouch failure.

INTERVENTION

Transabdominal IPAA revision was included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was pouch failure, defined as pouch excision or permanent pouch diversion, after IPAA revision.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients (64.2% women) were included with a median age of 36 years (interquartile range, 28.5-46.5) at revision. Eighty percent of patients had a primary diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The most common indication for revision was leak/pelvic sepsis, representing 41% of the cohort, followed by pouch-vaginal fistula (22.2%), mechanical factors (20.4%), and poor pouch function (14.6%). During the study period, 56 patients (35.2%) experienced pouch failure. The 3-year pouch survival probability was 82.3% (95% CI, 75.5%-87.5%), 5-year pouch survival probability was 77.2% (95% CI, 69.8%-83.0%), and 10-year pouch survival probability was 70.6% (95% CI, 62.6%-77.2%). Compared to mechanical factors, pouch failure was significantly associated with pelvic sepsis (HR, 4.25; 95% CI, 1.50-12.0) and pouch-vaginal fistula (HR, 4.37; 95% CI, 1.47-12.99). No significant association was found between revision failure and previous revision, redo ileoanal anastomosis, or new pouch construction.

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited by its retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional IPAA can be undertaken with favorable long-term outcomes at high-volume centers. Consideration should be given to indication for revision when counseling patients regarding the risk of failure. Further research on risk stratifying patients before revision is required. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B966 .

REVISIN DE LA ANASTOMOSIS ANAL DE LA BOLSA ILEAL TRANSABDOMINAL LA INDICACIN DICTA EL RESULTADO

ANTECEDENTES:Después de la falla en la anastomosis del reservorio ileoanal, los pacientes seleccionados son elegibles para la revisión de la anastomosis del reservorio ileoanal. Actualmente, hay evidencias limitadas que describen los resultados de la revisión a largo plazo y los predictores del fracaso de la revisión. Esto representa un importante vacío de investigación a la hora de seleccionar y asesorar a los pacientes.OBJETIVO:Definir los resultados de supervivencia a largo plazo de la IPAA después de la revisión de la anastomosis del reservorio ileoanal transabdominal e identificar los factores clínicos preoperatorios asociados con el fracaso de la revisión.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Este estudio se realizó en un centro de referencia terciario.PARTICIPANTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a una cirugía de revisión de la anastomosis ileoanal del reservorio entre 1982 y 2017, por falla del reservorio.INTERVENCIÓN:Revisión de la anastomosis de reservorio ileoanal transabdominal.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario es el fracaso del reservorio, definido como escisión del reservorio o derivación permanente del reservorio, después de la revisión de la anastomosis del reservorio ileoanal.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 159 pacientes (64,2% mujeres) con una mediana de edad a la revisión de 36 años (RIC: 28,5-46,5). El ochenta por ciento tenía un diagnóstico primario de colitis ulcerosa. La indicación más común para la revisión fue la fuga/sepsis pélvica, que representó el 41 % de la cohorte, seguida de la fístula vaginal del reservorio (22,2 %), factores mecánicos (20,4 %) y mala función del reservorio 14,6 %. Durante el período de estudio, 56 pacientes (35,2 %) experimentaron fallas en la bolsa. Las probabilidades de supervivencia de la bolsa a los 3, 5 y 10 años fueron del 82,3% (IC del 95%: 75,5%-87,5%), del 77,2% (IC del 95%: 69,8%-83,0%) y del 70,6% (IC del 95%: 62,6%- 77,2%), respectivamente. En comparación con los factores mecánicos, la falla de la bolsa se asoció significativamente con sepsis pélvica (HR = 4,25, IC del 95 %: 1,50 a 12,0) y fístula vaginal de la bolsa (HR = 4,37, IC del 95 %: 1,47 a 12,99). No hubo una asociación significativa entre el fracaso de la revisión y la revisión previa, el rehacer la anastomosis ileoanal o la construcción de una nueva bolsa.LIMITACIONES:El estudio está limitado por su diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:La revisión de la anastomosis del reservorio ileoanal se puede realizar con resultados favorables a largo plazo en centros de alto volumen. Se debe considerar la indicación de revisión al asesorar a los pacientes sobre el riesgo de fracaso. Se requiere investigación adicional sobre la estratificación del riesgo de los pacientes antes de la revisión. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B966 . (Traducción - Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

The Benefits and Drawbacks of Staging Pelvic Pouches

Since the mid-20th century, physicians have searched for way to improve the lives of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Early attempts of curative resection left the patients with a permanent stoma with only primitive stoma appliances available. Gradually, stoma care improved and operations were devised to give the patient bowel continuity without the need for a permanent ostomy. As these operations were evolving, benefits and drawbacks related to fertility, ease of small bowel reach to the pelvis, and postoperative pelvic sepsis were observed. In this article, we will elucidate the various ways pelvic pouches are used to treat UC and the rationale for the timing of surgery as well as the evolution of stoma care.

Pelvic Pouch Failure: Treatment Options

Up to 30% of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) will require surgical management of their disease during their lifetime. An ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the gold standard of care, giving patients the ability to be free from UC's bowel disease and avoid a permanent ostomy. Despite surgical advancements, a minority of patients will still experience pouch failure which can be debilitating and often require further surgical interventions. Signs and symptoms of pouch failure should be addressed with the appropriate workup and treatment plans formulated according with the patient's wishes. This article will discuss the identification, workup, and treatment options for pouch failure after IPAA.

Management, Functional Outcomes, and Quality of Life After Development of Pelvic Sepsis in Patients Undergoing Re-Do Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis

BACKGROUND

The data on management and outcomes of pelvic sepsis after re-do IPAA are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to report our management algorithm of pelvic sepsis in the setting of re-do IPAA and compare functional outcomes and quality of life after successful management of pelvic sepsis with a no sepsis control group.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

This investigation is based on a single academic practice group experience on re-do IPAA.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent re-do IPAA for ileal pouch failure between September 2016 and September 2020 were included in the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Management of pelvic sepsis was reported. Functional outcomes, restrictions, and quality-of-life scores were compared between the sepsis and no sepsis groups.

RESULTS

One-hundred ten patients were included in our study, of whom 25 (22.7%) developed pelvic sepsis. Twenty-three patients presented with pelvic sepsis before ileostomy closure, and 2 patients presented with pelvic sepsis after ileostomy closure. There were 6 pouch failures in the study period due to pelvic sepsis. Our management was successful in 79% of the patients with median follow-up of 26 months. Treatments included interventional radiology abscess drainage (n = 7), IV antibiotics alone (n = 5), interventional radiology drainage and mushroom catheter placement (n = 1), mushroom catheter placement (n = 1), and endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure (n = 1). Average number of bowel movements, urgency, incontinence, pad use, and seepage were comparable between the pelvic sepsis and no pelvic sepsis groups ( p > 0.05). Lifestyle alterations, Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores, and happiness with the results of the surgery were similar ( p > 0.05).

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited by its low study power and limited follow-up time.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic sepsis is common after re-do IPAA, and management varies according to the location and size of the abscess/sinus. If detected early, our management strategy was associated with high pouch salvage rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B823 .

MANEJO, RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES Y CALIDAD DE VIDA DESPUS DEL DESARROLLO DE SEPSIS PLVICA EN PACIENTES SOMETIDAS A RECONFECCIN DE ANASTOMOSIS ANAL CON BOLSA ILEAL

ANTECEDENTES:Los datos sobre el tratamiento y los resultados de la sepsis pélvica después de reconfección de anastomosis anal, de la bolsa ileal son escasos.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio es informar nuestro algoritmo de manejo de la sepsis pélvica en el contexto de reconfección de anastomosis anal de la bolsa ileal y comparar los resultados funcionales y la calidad de vida después del manejo exitoso de la sepsis pélvica con un grupo de control sin sepsis.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Esta investigación se basa en una experiencia de un solo grupo de práctica académica sobre reconfección de IPAA.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron en el estudio pacientes que se sometieron a una nueva anastomosis anal, del reservorio ileal por falla del reservorio ileal entre el 09/2016 y el 09/2020.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se informó el manejo de la sepsis pélvica. Los resultados funcionales, las restricciones y las puntuaciones de calidad de vida, se compararon entre los grupos con sepsis y sin sepsis.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 110 pacientes en nuestro estudio, de los cuales 25 (22,7) desarrollaron sepsis pélvica. Veintitrés pacientes presentaron sepsis pélvica antes del cierre de la ileostomía y 2 pacientes presentaron sepsis pélvica después del cierre de la ileostomía. Hubo 6 fallas de la bolsa en el período de estudio debido a sepsis pélvica. Nuestro manejo fue exitoso en el 79% de los pacientes con una mediana de seguimiento de 26 meses. Los tratamientos incluyeron drenaje de abscesos IR (n = 7), antibióticos intravenosos solos (n = 5), drenaje IR y colocación de catéter en forma de hongo (n = 1), colocación de catéter en forma de hongo (n = 1) y cierre endoluminal asistido por vacío (n = 1). El número promedio de evacuaciones intestinales, urgencia, incontinencia, uso de almohadillas y filtraciones fueron comparables entre los grupos con sepsis pélvica y sin sepsis pélvica ( p > 0,05). Las alteraciones del estilo de vida, las puntuaciones de la Calidad de vida global de Cleveland y la felicidad con los resultados de la cirugía fueron similares ( p > 0,05).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio está limitado por su bajo poder de estudio y su tiempo de seguimiento limitado.CONCLUSIONES:La sepsis pélvica es común después de la reconfección de anastomosis anal de la bolsa ileal y el manejo varía según la ubicación y el tamaño del absceso / seno. Si se detecta temprano, nuestra estrategia de manejo se asoció con altas tasas de recuperación de la bolsa. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B823 . (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Operative, long-term and quality of life outcomes after salvage of failed re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis

AIM

Approximately 20%-40% of the patients with re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) experience pouch failure. Salvage surgery can be attempted in this patient group with severe aversion to permanent ileostomy. The literature regarding secondary IPAA revision after re-do IPAA failure is scarce.

METHODS

All patients who underwent a secondary IPAA revision after re-do IPAA failure between September 2016 and July 2021 in a single centre were included. Short- and long-term outcomes and quality of life in this patient group are reported.

RESULTS

Ten patients who had secondary IPAA revision for re-do IPAA failure were included. All patients had ulcerative colitis. Nine of these patients had pelvic sepsis and one patient had a mechanical issue. Mucosectomy and handsewn anastomosis was performed in nine patients. The existing pouch was salvaged in six patients and four patients had pouch excision and re-creation. Two patients had postoperative pelvic sepsis. Pouch retention rate was 78% in a median of 28 months. None of the patients had short-gut syndrome. The procedure was associated with good quality of life (median Cleveland Global Quality of Life Index 0.8). All patients would undergo the same surgery if needed.

CONCLUSION

Secondary IPAA revision after a failed re-do IPAA can be an option in patients with severe aversion to permanent ileostomy if re-do IPAA fails and it is associated with good outcomes. This patient group should be carefully evaluated and referred to specialized centres if required.

Handsewn Versus Stapled IPAA in Redo Setting: Indications, Patient Characteristics, Operative, Functional, and Quality-of-Life Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The impact of the type of anastomosis on the outcomes of redo IPAA is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the indications, perioperative outcomes, and functional outcomes in patients undergoing stapled vs handsewn redo IPAA.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

This investigation is based on a single academic practice group experience with redo IPAA.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent redo IPAA for ileal pouch failure between September 2016 and May 2020 were included in the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Indications, perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, restrictions, and quality-of-life scores were compared between stapled and handsewn groups.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients underwent redo IPAA for ileal pouch failure of whom 76 (72%) had handsewn and 29 (28%) had stapled reanastomosis. The interval between the index and redo IPAA was shorter in stapled redo IPAA (median (interquartile range), Stapled: 3 years (1-4) vs handsewn: 7 years (3-17), p < 0.001). Handsewn anastomosis was more commonly used after pelvic sepsis (handsewn: n = 57 (76%) vs stapled: n = 13 (45%), p = 0.002). Overall postoperative morbidity was similar between the 2 groups (handsewn: n = 38 (50%) vs stapled: n = 16 (55%), p = 0.635). The number of bowel movements, pad use, daily restrictions, and Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores were similar between stapled and handsewn groups. Although daytime seepage was more common after handsewn anastomosis (handsewn, n = 20 (44%) vs stapled, n = 3 (14%), p = 0.013), nighttime seepage was similar in both groups. Pouch survival rates were comparable: 88% vs 92% (p > 0.05).

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited by its low study power and limited follow-up time.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who had pelvic sepsis after their index IPAA required handsewn anastomosis at higher rates than other redo cases. Although handsewn anastomosis is a more complex procedure, it is associated with morbidity, functional outcomes, and quality-of-life scores similar to stapled anastomosis for redo IPAA. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B580.

RECONSTRUCCIN DE ANASTOMOSIS ILEONAL CON RESERVORIO ILEAL CON SUTURA MANUAL VERSUS ANASTOMOSIS CON ENGRAPADO INDICACIONES, CARACTERSTICAS DEL PACIENTE, RESULTADOS OPERATORIOS, FUNCIONALES Y DE CALIDAD DE VIDA

ANTECEDENTES:Se desconoce el impacto en los resultados del tipo de anastomosis se rehace una anastomosis ileonal con reservorio ileal (IPAA).OBJETIVO:El propósito de este estudio es evaluar las indicaciones, resultados perioperatorios y funcionales en pacientes sometidos a una reconstrucción IPAA con engrapado vs sutura manual.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Esta investigación se basa en la experiencia de un solo grupo de práctica académica sobre reconstrucción IPAA.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron en el estudio pacientes que fueron sometidos a una reconstrucción de IPAA por falla del reservorio ileal entre septiembre del 2016 hasta mayo del 2020.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:se compararon indicaciones, resultados perioperatorios, funcionales, restricciones y puntuaciones de calidad de vida entre los grupos de engrapado y sutura manual.RESULTADOS:Un total de 105 pacientes fueron sometidos a una reconstrucción de IPAA por falla del reservorio ileal, de los cuales 76 (72%) fueron reanastomosis con sutura manual y 29 (28%) con engrapado. El intervalo entre la cirugía inicial y la reintervención de IPAA fue más corto en la reconstrucción de IPAA con engrapado [mediana (IQR), engrapado: 3 años (1-4) vs con sutura manual: 7 años (3-17), p <0,001]. La anastomosis con sutura manual se realizo con mayor frecuencia después de sepsis pélvica [sutura manual: n = 57 (76%) vs engrapado: n = 13 (45%), p = 0,002]. La morbilidad postoperatoria total fue similar entre los dos grupos [sutura manual: n = 38 (50%) vs engrapado: n = 16 (55%), p = 0,635]. El número de evacuaciones intestinales, el uso de paños protectores, restricciones diarias y puntuaciones en CGQL fueron similares entre los grupos de engrapado y sutura manual. Si bien el manchado por la mañana fue más común después de la anastomosis con sutura manual [sutura manual, n = 20 (44%) vs engrapado, n = 3 (14%), p = 0.013], el manchado por la noche fue similar en ambos grupos. Las tasas de sobrevida con reservorio fueron comparables; 88% vs 92% respectivamente (p> 0,05).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio está limitado por su bajo poder de estudio y su tiempo de seguimiento limitado.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes que tuvieron sepsis pélvica después de su primer IPAA, requirieron anastomosis con sutura manual en un porcentaje más alto que otros procedimientos de reintervención. Si bien es cierto, la anastomosis con sutura manual es un procedimiento mucho más complejo; este se asoció a una morbilidad, resultados funcionales y puntuaciones de calidad de vida similares en comparación a la anastomosis con engrapado cuando se rehace la IPAA. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B580. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Indications, functional and quality of life outcomes of new pouch creation during re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis: A comparative study with existing pouch salvage

BACKGROUND

Salvage of the existing ileal pouch is favored during re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis if the pouch is not damaged after pelvic dissection and there are no other mechanical reasons that may necessitate construction of a new pouch. Excision of the existing pouch may be associated with some concerns for short-bowel syndrome and poor functional outcomes. This study aimed to report indications and compare functional and quality of life outcomes of new pouch creation versus salvage of the existing pouch during re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis.

METHODS

Patients who underwent re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis between September 2016 and June 2020 were included. The reasons for pouch excision and new pouch creation were reported. Perioperative, functional outcomes and quality of life were compared between patients who had creation of a new pouch versus salvage of existing pouch.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients with re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis (new pouch, n = 63) were included. Most common indications for a new pouch creation were chronic pelvic infection that compromised the integrity and viability of the existing pouch (n = 32) and small pouch (n = 21). No patient developed short-bowel syndrome. The number of bowel movements, daily restrictions and Cleveland Global Quality of Life score scores were similar between 2 groups. Day-time seepage, day-time and night-time pad usage were more common after new pouch creation. Two-year pouch survival rates were comparable (new pouch: 92% versus existing pouch: 85%, P = .31).

CONCLUSION

New pouch creation can be safely performed at the time of re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis. It provides acceptable functional and quality of life outcomes if existing pouch salvage is not feasible.

The pouch behaving badly: management of morbidity after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis

AIM

Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), or a 'pouch', allows restoration of intestinal continuity after proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis. Most patients have a good long-term outcome after IPAA, but in a significant proportion the functional outcome and quality of life are unsatisfactory. We term this outcome 'the pouch behaving badly'. Managing this, especially one is when unfamiliar with the possible underlying pathologies, is a challenge for both patient and clinician. We aim to outline the clinical approach to the pouch behaving badly, highlighting key aspects of investigation and management.

METHOD

This is a narrative review of the literature covering the investigation and management of postoperative complications and morbidity after IPAA.

RESULTS

Management of the pouch behaving badly requires a careful clinical assessment. The patient may present with multiple symptoms and a clear picture of the symptomatology and past history should be constructed before thorough examination and specialist investigation. We divide the pathology that underlies this clinical scenario into surgical, inflammatory, mechanical, functional and dysplastic causes and outline the investigation and management of each one.

CONCLUSION

The pouch behaving badly is a challenging problem for both patient and clinician. A detailed clinical assessment with careful specialist investigation is key to diagnosing the underlying pathology. We stress the importance of patient-centred care - the aim is to improve quality of life.

Revisional ileoanal pouch surgery: a systematic literature review assessing outcomes over the last 40 years

AIM

Failure of primary ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) occurs in up to 15% of patients. Revision surgery may be offered to patients wishing to maintain gastrointestinal continuity. This paper explores the literature relating to IPAA revision surgery, focusing on pouch function after revision and factors associated with pouch failure.

METHODS

Search of PubMed database was carried out for 'ileal pouch anal anastomoses', 'ileoanal pouch', 'restorative proctocolectomy', 'revision surgery', 'redo surgery', 'failure', 'refashion surgery', 'reconstruction surgery' and 'salvage surgery'. Papers were screened using the PRISMA literature review strategy. Studies of adults published after 1980 in English with an available abstract were included. Case reports and studies that were superseded using the same data were excluded.

RESULTS

Nineteen papers (1424 patients) were identified. Bowel motion frequency doubled following revision surgery compared to primary IPAA although the increase was not always statistically significant. In patients failing primary IPAA, frequency of daytime bowel motions improved following revision in three studies but only reached significance in one (12.1 vs. 6.9, P = 0.021). Risk of pouch failure is increased in patients who develop pelvic sepsis after the primary procedure with the largest study demonstrating a four-fold increased risk (hazard ratio 3.691, P < 0.0001). A final diagnosis of Crohn's causes a four-fold increased risk of pouch failure (n = 81; OR 3.92, 95% CI 1.1-15.9, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing revisional surgery, improved outcomes are observed but are inferior compared to primary IPAA patients. Pelvic sepsis after primary IPAA and a final diagnosis of Crohn's are associated with increased risk of pouch failure.

Reporting Templates for MRI and Water-Soluble Contrast Enema in Patients With Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis: Experience From a Large Referral Center

Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery is the reference standard surgical procedure for treatment of ulcerative colitis and most patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. This procedure allows preservation of fecal continence and gastrointestinal continuity. However, it is associated with a wide variety of complications, which often have nonspecific and overlapping clinical presentations, making imaging an important part of workup for pouch dysfunction. The purpose of this article is to propose structured reporting templates for MRI and water-soluble contrast enema (WSCE), based on our referral pouch center's experience, in patients who have undergone IPAA surgery. We review salient surgical technique, pouch anatomy, and imaging protocols, with an emphasis on a systematic search pattern for evaluation of ileal pouch complications using proposed structured reporting templates for MRI and WSCE.

Transabdominal Pouch Salvage for Failed Minimally Invasive Versus Open IPAA: A Case-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Modality of index IPAA creation may affect the results after redo IPAA surgery for IPAA failure. To our knowledge, there is no study evaluating the effects of modality of index IPAA creation on redo IPAA outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes of transabdominal redo IPAA surgery for failed minimally invasive IPAA and open IPAA.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

This investigation was based on a single-surgeon experience on redo IPAA.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing transabdominal redo IPAA for a failed minimally invasive IPAA and open IPAA between September 2007 and September 2017 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Short-term complications and long-term outcomes were compared between 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 42 patients with failed index minimally invasive IPAA were case matched with 42 failed index open IPAA counterparts. The interval between index IPAA and redo IPAA operations was shorter in patients who had minimally invasive IPAA (median, 28.5 vs 56.0 mo; p = 0.03). A long rectal stump (>2 cm) was more common after minimally invasive IPAA (26% vs 10%; p = 0.046). Redo IPAAs were constructed more commonly with staplers in the laparoscopy group compared with open counterparts (26% vs 10%; p = 0.046), and other intraoperative details were comparable. Although short-term morbidity was similar between 2 groups, abscess formation (7% vs 24%; p = 0.035) was more frequent in patients who had index IPAA with open technique. Functional outcomes were comparable. Redo IPAA survival for failed minimally invasive IPAA and open IPAA was comparable.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective, nonrandomized nature and relatively low patient number.

CONCLUSIONS

A long rectal cuff after minimally invasive IPAA is a potential and preventable risk factor for failure. Due to its technical and patient-related complexity, handsewn anastomoses in redo IPAA are associated with increased risk of abscess formation. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B252. RESCATE DEL RESERVORIO ILEO-ANAL POR VIA TRANSABDOMINAL EN CASOS DE FUGA ANASTOMÓTICA ENTRE ABORDAGE MINIMAMENTE INVASIVO Y ABORDAJE ABIERTO: ESTUDIO DE EMPAREJAMIENTO DE MUESTRAS Y CASOS: La creación de modalidades e índices de Reservorios Ileo-Anales (RIA) pueden afectar los resultados después de rehacer la cirugía de RIAs por fallas en el reservorio. Hasta donde sabemos, no hay ningún estudio que evalúe los efectos de la modalidad de creación de índices RIA en los resultados para el rescate del reservorio.Este estudio tuvo como objetivo comparar los resultados a corto y largo plazo de la cirugía transabdominal redo RIA en casos de fracaso por via mínimamente invasiva (MI-RIA) o por la vía abierta (A-RIA).Estudio de cohortes tipo retrospectivo.Investigación basada en la experiencia de un solo cirujano en redo del Reservorio Ileo-Anal.Se incluyeron aquellos pacientes sometidos a re-operación transabdominal y re-confección de un RIA por fallas en el MI-RIA y en el A-RIA durante un lapso de tiempo entre septiembre 2007 y septiembre 2017.Las complicaciones a corto plazo y los resultados a largo plazo se compararon entre los dos grupos.Un total de 42 pacientes con índice fallido de MI-RIA fueron emparejados con 42 homólogos con índice fallido de A-RIA. El intervalo entre las operaciones de RIA y redo RIA fué más corto en pacientes que tenían MI-RIA (mediana, 28,5 meses frente a 56 meses, p = 0,03). Un muñón rectal largo (> 2 cm) fue más común después de MI-RIA (26% vs 10%, p = 0.046). Redo RIAs se construyeron más comúnmente con engrampadoras en el grupo Minimalmente Invasivo en comparación con la contraparte abiertas (26% vs 10%, p = 0.046). Aunque la morbilidad a corto plazo fue similar entre los dos grupos, la aparición de abscesos (7% frente a 24%, p = 0.035) fue más frecuente en pacientes que tenían RIA con técnica abierta. Los resultados funcionales fueron comparables. La sobrevida de las redo RIAs para MI-RIA y A-RIA fallidas, también fué comparable.Este estudio estuvo limitado por su naturaleza retrospectiva, no aleatoria y el número relativamente bajo de pacientes.Un muñon rectal largo después de MI-RIA es un factor de riesgo potencial y previsible para el fracaso. Debido a su complejidad técnica y relacionada con el paciente, las anastomosis suturadas a mano en redo RIA están asociadas con un mayor riesgo de formación de abscesos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B252.

Disease and Treatment Patterns Among Patients With Pouch-related Conditions in a Cohort of Large Tertiary Care Inflammatory Bowel Disease Centers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Gaps exist in our understanding of the clinical course of pouch-related disorders.

METHODS

We evaluated baseline disease activity and longitudinal treatment patterns among patients with inflammatory conditions of the pouch.

RESULTS

Among 468 patients with an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), 94 (20%) had acute pouchitis, 96 (21%) had chronic pouchitis, and 192 (41%) had Crohn disease of the pouch. Following an IPAA, 38% of patients were treated with a biologic and 11% underwent inflammatory bowel disease- or bowel-related surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment patterns after IPAA indicate that pouch-related disorders have a significant impact on individual patients and the healthcare system.

Continent Ileostomy as an Alternative to End Ileostomy

Continent ileostomy (CI) was once a prevalent surgical technique for patients who required total proctocolectomy but then gave way to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) after 1980. Although IPAA has been the gold standard procedure preferred by most patients when total proctocolectomy is required, due to its imitation of physiological function of rectum and preserved function of anus, various complications have been observed with a relatively high rate of morbidity that could affect pouch longevity. Once serious complications such as pelvic abscesses and/or fistula occur, the pouch often needs to be removed. In addition, for some patients with a shortened small intestine or foreshortened mesentery, it is impossible for the ileal pouch to reach the pelvic floor, thus making the creation of an IPAA difficult. Previously, most of these patients would be referred for an end ileostomy, with an associated poor quality of life. In this circumstance, we propose that CI may deserve a reappraisal and serve as an alternative. In this article, we review the indications, contraindications, technique evolution, and outcomes of CI.

Re-operation surgery following IPAA: is there a role for laparoscopy?

BACKGROUND

Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal J pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) has become the standard of care for mucosal ulcerative colitis and Familial Adenomatous Polyposis. Some patients require re-operation, including pouch revision, advancement, or excision. Re-operative procedures are technically demanding and usually performed only by experienced colorectal surgeons in a small number of referral centers. There is a paucity of data regarding feasibility, safety, and outcomes of laparoscopic re-operative IPAA surgery. This study aimed to determine the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic approach for re-operative IPAA, trans-abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of IRB-approved prospective database for patients who underwent trans-abdominal re-operative IPAA from 2011 to 2018. Patient demographics and operative reports were reviewed to classify type of re-operation into pouch excision, revision, or advancement and further classify as laparoscopic, laparoscopic converted to open, or open surgery. Main outcome measures were post-operative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients met the inclusion criteria: 19 underwent attempted laparoscopic re-operative IPAA surgery, 12 of whom underwent successful laparoscopic surgery while 7 were converted to laparotomy, for an overall laparoscopic intent to treat 63% success rate. The remaining operations (n = 57) were performed through midline laparotomy. Length of stay (LOS) for patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery was significantly shorter (5.5 vs 9.7 days, p < 0.001) as were abdominal superficial surgical site infections (SSI) (0% vs 18%, p < 0.001) and deep SSI (0% vs 17%, p < 0.001). Laparotomy was performed by 6 colorectal surgeons at our institution while laparoscopy was successfully performed only by the senior author. There was no significant difference in overall complications, re-admission, re-operation, or mortality.

CONCLUSION

Re-operative, trans-abdominal, laparoscopic IPAA is both feasible and safe and has clear benefits compared to laparotomy in terms of LOS and superficial and deep SSI. However, this approach needs to be undertaken only by very experienced, high-volume laparoscopic IPAA surgeons.

Experience, complications and prognostic factors of the ileoanal pouch in ulcerative colitis: An observational study

INTRODUCTION

Ileoanal pouch following restorative proctocolectomy is the treatment for ulcerative colitis after failed medical treatment. Our main aim was to evaluate early and late morbidity associated with restorative proctocolectomy. The secondary aim was to assess risk factors for pouch failure.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational, single-center study was performed. Patients who had undergone restorative proctocolectomy for a preoperative diagnosis of ulcerative colitis from 1983-2015 were included. Early (<30 days) and late (>30 days) adverse events were analyzed. Pouch failure was defined as the need for pouch excision or when ileostomy closure could not be performed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess pouch failure risk factors.

RESULTS

The study included 139 patients. One patient subsequently died in the early postoperative period. Mean follow-up was 23 years. Manual anastomoses were performed in 54 patients (39%). Early adverse events were found in 44 patients (32%), 15 of which (11%) had anastomotic fistula. Late adverse events were found in 90 patients (65%), and pouch-related fistulae (29%) were the most commonly found in this group. Pouch failure was identified in 42 patients (32%). In the multivariate analysis, age >50 years (p<0.01; HR: 5.55), handsewn anastomosis (p<0.01; HR: 3.78), pouch-vaginal (p=0.02; HR: 2.86), pelvic (p<0.01; HR: 5.17) and cutaneous p=0.01; HR: 3.01) fistulae were the main pouch failure risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Restorative proctocolectomy for a preoperative diagnosis of ulcerative colitis has high morbidity rates. Long-term outcomes could be improved if risk factors for failure are avoided.

The ABC's of re-do ileoanal pouches, what every gastroenterologist should know

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the development of re-do pouch surgery, what it entails, its indications and role in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Re-do pouch surgery has very good outcomes and excellent patient satisfaction when performed on carefully selected patients in specialized centers.

SUMMARY

The ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) procedure, which was developed 40 years ago, is a mainstay in the reconstruction of patients who undergo a proctoclectomy for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). It allows these patients to avoid a permanent ileostomy, with the majority having a very good quality of life and functional outcomes. Unfortunately, a small but not insignificant number of patients will develop technical complications that may severely affect their quality of life and function of the pouch. In the past, pouch excision with permanent diversion or Koch pouch were the only option available to these patients. Recent advances have resulted in the development of corrective surgical measures to restore pouch function. We will discuss strategies to evaluate and select the right patients for a re-do pouch surgery, how to surgically optimize them, and describe the proper technique of ileal pouch revision and reconstruction.

Ileal pouch revision vs excision: short-term (30-day) outcomes from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

AIM

Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) failure occurs in approximately 5%-10% of patients. We aimed to compare short-term (30-day) postoperative outcomes associated with pouch revision and pouch excision using a large international database. Our null hypothesis was that there is no statistically significant difference in overall postoperative complications between patients selected for pouch revision vs pouch excision.

METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant User File from 2005 to 2016 we identified patients who underwent either IPAA revision via the combined abdominoperineal approach [Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 46712] or IPAA excision (CPT 45136). Differences in baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes between groups were assessed with univariate and matched analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 593 reoperative IPAA procedures: revision group 78 (13%) and excision group 515 (86%). The groups had similar age and body mass index (kg/m² ), but the revision group had more women (65.4% vs 51.8%, P = 0.02) and fewer were on chronic steroids (3.9% vs 17.9%, P = 0.0008) relative to the excision group. Revision IPAA patients were more likely to have received a preoperative transfusion (5.1% vs 0.97%, P = 0.02). Revision and excision were associated with similar postoperative length of stay (9.3 vs 8.6 days, 0.44), mortality (nil vs 0.58%, respectively; P = 0.99) and short-term morbidity (34.6% vs 40.2%, respectively; P = 0.88) at 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Pouch revision and excision have comparable short-term postoperative outcomes, but pouch excision appears to be more commonly utilized. Increased awareness of the indications for pouch revision or referral to specialized centres may improve pouch revision rates.