4.7 Article

Outcomes in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis Undergoing Partial or Complete Reconstructive Surgery for Failing Heal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGERY
Volume 249, Issue 3, Pages 409-413

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31819a697b

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Evaluate outcomes of patients with an original diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (UC) who required partial or complete ileal pouch reconstruction due to poor function or infectious complications. Methods: A prospectively collected ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) database was reviewed retrospectively to identify UC patients undergoing major reconstructive revisions of their IPAA at our institution between 198 1 and 2005. Functional results were derived from continued surveys of patients. Results: Fifty-one UC patients were identified but 22 subsequently proved to have Crohns disease (CD). The initial IPAA was constructed at our institution in 32 patients and elsewhere in 19 patients. Indications for revision included infectious/inflammatory complications (65%) and mechanical difficulties (35%). Pouch revision was partial in 57% of patients and complete in 43%. There were no postoperative deaths. Following reconstruction, patients reported on average 5 daytime and 1 nighttime bowel movements. Daytime incontinence was occasional in 43% and frequent in 4%. Nighttime incontinence was occasional in 54% and frequent in 7%. The probability of pouch survival after reconstruction was 93% at 1 year and 89% at 5 years. Of the pouches that subsequently failed, 75% occurred in patients with a later diagnosis of CD. Postreconstruction abscess was a significant risk factor for ultimate pouch failure. Conclusions: In UC patients with failing IPAA, partial or complete pouch reconstruction can be done safely with good functional results, and may avoid pouch excision and permanent ileostomy in carefully selected patients, especially those with definite UC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available