Prospective analysis of surgical and functional outcomes after total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in 86 patients with ulcerative colitis

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30978/GS-2022-1-19

Keywords:

ulcerative colitis, laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy, ileal pouch function

Abstract

Proctocolectomy with an ileal pouch‑anal anastomosis is currently considered the procedure of choice for the majority of patients with ulcerative colitis. Certain controversies about pouch design and pouch‑anal anastomosis technique remain a matter of debate, and possible advantages of laparoscopic approach are still being discussed.

Objective — to investigate short‑term and long‑term outcomes of laparoscopic and open restorative proctocolectomy for UC in terms of postoperative morbidity and pouch function depending on the three types of construction of a neorectum described in our research.

Materials and methods. 86 patients with inflammatory bowel disease underwent one‑stage or two‑stage restorative proctocolectomy. The two ileal pouch configurations were used: S‑pouch — in 16 patients and J‑pouch — in 70 patients. Removal of the distal rectum and ileal pouch‑anal anastomosis were performed using transanal distal rectum mucosectomy followed by a handsewn pouch‑anal anastomosis (n = 45) or a double‑stapled technique (n = 31). Laparoscopic approach was applied in 39 patients, and open surgery — in 47 patients. The short‑term (30 days after surgery) and long‑term surgical outcomes were prospectively studied. The analysis of functional outcomes was based on the number of bowel movements a day, episodes of fecal incontinence, seepage, and urgency. Instrumental investigation included measurement of the anal sphincter pressures and ileal pouch threshold volume as well as the study of its residual volume. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software.

Results. There was no postoperative mortality. In the laparoscopic group, 4 (10.3 %) patients had early postoperative complications compared with 13 (27.7 %) patients in the open surgery group, but the difference was not statistically significant (Fisher exact test value is 0.0579 at p < 0.05). Pouch failure occurred in 4 patients. The second‑stage laparoscopic restorative procedure revealed the abdominal cavity almost free of adhesions in 19 (86.4 %) patients after laparoscopic total colectomy. The total number of early and late mucosectomy complications was significantly higher, 12 (75.0 %) vs. 10 (26.0 %) (p = 0.0018), in patients managed with a handsewn S pouch‑anal anastomosis than in patients treated with a J‑pouch‑anal anastomosis. Good functional outcomes were observed in 44 (51.0 %) patients. A strong negative correlation was found between the pouch threshold volume and the number of bowel movements per 24 hours (r = –0.7347, p < 0.0001). The seepage episodes were detected in 30 (34.8 %) patients. The resting anal sphincter pressure was the only measured parameter which correlated accurately with the number of day and night seepage episodes (r = –074, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions. Good functional outcomes of construction of a neorectum were associated with the resting anal sphincter pressure (≥ 30 mm Hg) and ileal pouch threshold volume (150 — 250 ml). The S‑shaped and J‑shaped pouches demonstrated the same functional outcomes and posed similar risks. The S‑pouch was associated with a higher postoperative morbidity (p = 0.0018). There was no significant difference between laparoscopic and open surgery groups in terms of morbidity rate and functional outcomes. However, it was much easier to perform the second‑stage surgery after laparoscopy due to less adhesion formation.

Author Biography

M. Kucher, Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv

Department of Surgery No 1

References

Bengtsson J, Börjesson L, Lundstam U, Oresland T. Long-term function and manovolumetric characteristics after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Br J Surg. 2007 Mar;94(3):327-32. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5484. PMID: 17225209.

Chang S, Shen B, Remzi F. When Not to Pouch: Important Considerations for Patient Selection for Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2017;13:466-475.

Cirocchi R, Morelli U, Arezzo A, et al. Double-stapled anastomosis versus mucosectomy and handsewn anastomosis in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2019. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011089.pub2/full.

Dafnis G. Functional Outcome and Quality of Life after Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis within a Defined Population in Sweden. Dig Dis. 2019;37(1):1-10. doi: 10.1159/000491921. Epub 2018 Oct 5. PMID: 30293078

De Buck van Overstraeten A, Mark-Christensen A, Wasmann KA, et al. Transanal Versus Transabdominal Minimally Invasive (Completion) Proctectomy With Ileal Pouch-anal Anastomosis in Ulcerative Colitis: A Comparative Study. Ann Surg. 2017; 266:878.

Fazio VW, Kiran RP, Remzi FH, et al. Ileal pouch anal anastomosis:analysis of outcome and quality of life in 3707 patients. Ann Surg. 2013;257:679-685.

Fearnhead NS, Lee MJ, Acheson AG, Worley G, Faiz OD, Brown SR. Variation in practice of pouch surgery in England using SWORD data to cut to the chase and justify centralization. Colorectal Dis. 2018;20:597-605.

Heald RJ, Allen DR. Stapled ileo-anal anastomosis: a technique to avoid mucosal proctectomy in the ileal pouch operation. Jornal of British Surgery. 1986;73.7:571-572.

Heuthorst L, Wasmann K, Reijntjes M, et al. Ileal Pouch-anal Anastomosis Complications and Pouch Failure. Annals of Surgery. 2021 June; 2(2). doi: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000074.

Holder-Murray J, Fichera A. Anal transition zone in the surgical management of ulcerative colitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2009; 15:769.

Hull TL, Joyce MR, Geisler DP, Coffey JC. Adhesions after laparoscopic and open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery for ulcerative colitis. Br J Surg. 2012;99:270-275.

Ishii H, Kawai K, Hata K, et al. Comparison of Functional Outcomes of Patients Who Underwent Hand-Sewn or Stapled Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis for Ulcerative Colitis. Int Surg. 2015 Jul;100(7-8):1169-76. doi: 10.9738/INTSURG-D-15-00012.1. PMID: 26595489.

Jonker JE, Hofker HS, Trzpis M, Broens PMA. Fecal continence outcomes are associated with the type, height, and stage procedure of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2020 Sep;35(9):1749-1757. doi: 10.1007/s00384-020-03626-7. Epub 2020 May 30. PMID: 32474709; PMCID: PMC7415023.

Kmiot WA, Keighley MRB. Totally stapled abdominal restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg. 1989 Sep:76 (9):961-964. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800760931.

Kucher MD, Bilianskyi LS, Kryvoruk MI, Tkachenko FH, Stelmakh AI. Laparoscopic Proctocolectomy for Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s Disease of the Large Intestine: Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of 53 Cases. Galician Medical Journal, 2016; 23(3). https://doi.org/10.21802/gmj.2016.3.25.

Lask, A., Biebl, M., Dittrich, L. et al. Safety of transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: a retrospective observational cohort study. Patient Saf Surg. 2021;15:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-021-00306-5.

Lightner AL, Grass F, McKenna NP, et al. Short-term postoperative outcomes following robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis are equivalent. Tech Coloproctol 2019; 23:259.

Lightner AL, Kelley SR, Larson DW. Robotic Platform for an IPAA. Dis Colon Rectum 2018; 61:869.

Lightner AL, Mathis KL, Dozois EJ, et al. Results at Up to 30 Years After Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis for Chronic Ulcerative Colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017; 23:781.

Lipman JM, Kiran RP, Shen B, Remzi F, Fazio VW. Perioperative factors during ileal pouch-anal anastomosis predict pouchitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:311.

Litzendorf ME, Stucchi AF, Wishnia S, et al. Completion mucosectomy for retained rectal mucosa following restorative proctocolectomy with double-stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010; 14:562.

Mark-Christensen A, Erichsen R, Brandsborg S, et al. Pouch failures following ileal pouch–anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Colorectal Dis. 2018; 20:44-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13802.

Mukewar S, Wu X, Lopez R, Bo S. Comparison of long-term outcomes of S and J pouches and continent ileostomies in ulcerative colitis patients with restorative proctocolectomy-experience in subspecialty pouch center. Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis. 2014 Oct; 8(10):1227-1236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crohns.2014.02.019.

Ng KS, Gonsalves SJ, Sagar PM. Ileal-anal pouches: A review of its history, indications, and complications. World J Gastroenterol. 2019 Aug 21;25(31):4320-4342. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i31.4320. PMID: 31496616; PMCID: PMC6710180.

Ng SC, Shi HY, Hamidi N, et al. Worldwide incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in the 21st century: a systematic review of population-based studies. Lancet. 2018;390(10114):2769-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32448-0.

Nicholls R. J. Pezim M. E. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: a comparison of three reservoir designs. Br J Surg 1985;72:470-474.

Oh SH, Yoon YS, Lee JL, et al. Postoperative changes of manometry after restorative proctocolectomy in Korean ulcerative colitis patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug 21;23(31):5780-5786. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i31.5780. PMID: 28883704; PMCID: PMC5569293.

Parks AG, Nicholls RJ. Proctocolectomy without ileostomy for ulcerative colitis. Br Med J. 1978; 2:85.

Parragi L, Fournier N, Zeitz J, et al.; Swiss IBD Cohort Study Group. Colectomy Rates in Ulcerative Colitis are Low and Decreasing: 10-year Follow-up Data From the Swiss IBD Cohort Study. J Crohns Colitis. 2018 Jun 28;12(7):811-818. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjy040. PMID: 29617750.

Peters WR. Laparoscopic total proctocolectomy with creation of ileostomy for ulcerative colitis: report of two cases. J Laparoendosc Surg. 1992 Jun;2(3):175-8. doi: 10.1089/lps.1992.2.175. PMID: 1535812.

Remzi FH, Lavryk OA, Ashburn JH, et al. Restorative proctocolectomy: an example of how surgery evolves in response to paradigm shifts in care. Colorectal Dis 2017;19:1003-1012.

Schieffer KM, Williams ED, Yochum GS, Koltun WA. Review article: the pathogenesis of pouchitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Oct;44(8):817-35. doi: 10.1111/apt.13780. Epub 2016 Aug 24. PMID: 27554912; PMCID: PMC5785099.

Sriranganathan D, Kilic Y, Quraishi MN, Segal JP. Prevalence of pouchitis in both Ulcerative Colitis and Familial Adenomatous Polyposis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Disease : the Official Journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15995.

Stryker SJ, Kelly KA, Phillips SF, Dozois RR, Beart RW Jr. Anal and neorectal function after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Ann Surg. 1986 Jan;203(1):55-61.

Sunde ML, Ricanek P, Øresland T, et al. Determinants of optimal bowel function in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis-physiological differences contributing to pouch function, Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. 2018; 53:1, 8-14. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2017.1390601.

Utsunomiya J, Iwama T, Imajo M, et al. Total colectomy, mucosal proctectomy, and ileoanal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1980; 23:459-466.

Downloads

Published

2022-04-30

Issue

Section

Original research