Management of conventional ileostomies

Pouch reconstruction in the pelvis

ILEAL POUCH RECONSTRUCTION: Proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the procedure of choice in mucosal ulcerative colitis (MUC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Because the disease is cured by surgical resection, functional results, pouch survival prognosis, and disease or dysplasia control are the major determinants of success. There is controversy as to whether the IPAA should be handsewn with mucosectomy or stapled, preserving the mucosa of the anal transitional zone. Crohn's disease is a contraindication for IPAA, but long-term outcome after IPAA is similar to that for MUC in patients with indeterminate colitis who do not develop Crohn's disease. As development of dysplasia and cancer in the ileal pouch have been reported, a standardized surveillance program is mandatory in cases of MUC, FAP, and chronic pouchitis. COLONIC POUCH RECONSTRUCTION: Construction of a colonic pouch is a widely accepted technique to improve functional outcome after low or intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. Several randomized studies comparing colo-pouch-anal anastomosis (CPA) with straight coloanal anastomosis (CAA) have found the pouch functionally superior. Most controlled studies cover only 1-year follow-up, but randomized studies with 2-year follow-up show similar functional results of CPA and CAA. Evacuation difficulty as initially observed was related to pouch size, and the results with smaller pouches (5-6 cm) are more favorable, showing adequate reservoir function without compromising neorectal evacuation. The transverse coloplasty pouch may offer several advantages to J-pouch reconstruction. Current series question whether the neorectal reservoir is the physiological key of the pouch, but rather the decreased motility. The major advantage reported with colonic pouch reconstruction is the lower incidence of anastomotic complications.

Comparison of loop versus end ileostomy for fecal diversion after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to compare the benefits versus complications of temporary loop ileostomies and end ileostomies in a consecutive series of patients undergoing colectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with diverting ileostomy for ulcerative colitis at the UCLA Medical Center during a 4-year period. An end ileostomy (EI) was used for 38 patients and a loop ileostomy (LI) for 39. All patients had a J pouch, with all EI patients having a hand-sewn ileoanal anastomosis, and 33 LI patients having a double-stapled anal anastomosis. EI closure was performed through a laparotomy, and LI closure was performed through a periileostomy incision.

RESULTS

The mean operative time for EI closure was 157 minutes, and for LI closure was 103 minutes. The wound infection rate after EI closure was 5.3% and after LI was 10.3%. For EI patients, 2 of 38 patients required reoperation, compared with 5 of 39 for LI. The mean hospital stay after EI closure was 6.7 days, and after LI closure was 7.1 days. Peristomal skin irritation was more severe, more prolonged, and occurred in more than twice as many LI as EI patients. Home ostomy nurse care was necessary for a mean of two visits for EI patients and five visits for LI patients. The cost ofostomy supplies and care was more than double for LI patients compared with those with EI. Patient satisfaction and ability to resume physical and social activities early after ileostomy construction were much more favorable for EI than LI patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit of shorter operating time for LI closure compared with EI closure is often outweighed by the complications and costs of LI stomal care and patient dissatisfaction. EI should be considered more frequently for temporary ileal diversion after restorative proctocolectomy.

Improved stabilization of conventional (Brooke) ileostomies with the stapler technique

The rate of functional complications of conventional (Brooke) ileostomy is high and endangers the complete postoperative rehabilitation of the patients. About half of these complications (retraction with/without stenosis, intermittent recession, and prolapse) occur within the classical prominent stoma and are caused by displacement of the serosa surfaces. We have stabilized conventional ileostomies in 39 patients with rows of staples placed paramesenterially and longitudinally. The ileum was everted in the classical way in the primary construction of ileostomies in 19 patients. On the other hand, in 11 patients the prominence of the stoma was established by pulling the ileum out through the previously plane-sutured stoma. In addition, 9 patients with ileostomies which were not primarily stabilized were corrected with the stapler technique to treat complications. With follow-up ranging from 0.2 years to 4.2 years, there have been no complications due to sliding of the nipple in these 39 patients. In contrast, there were complications in 37% of 38 patients with non-stabilized ileostomies with follow-up to the second postoperative year. It was more easily reproducible, more exact, and less traumatic to create the stoma prominence by pulling the intestine out from a primarily plane stoma than with classical eversion. With use of the stapler in repairing complications, local ileostomy constructions were no longer required in every second patient. Consequently, a Brooke ileostomy can be constructed more easily with the stapler technique, ensuring long-term function or restoration of function.

Streamlining the management of defecation disorders

Obstinate constipation is a frequent but elusive gastrointestinal symptom. Increased understanding of defecation physiology and recent availability of simple, ready-to-use tools have increased specificity of both diagnosis and treatment. This patient series includes over 700 severely constipated patients with over 70 percent overall therapeutic success. Cinedefecography, pelvic floor electromyography, and determination of rectoanal inhibitory reflex were performed with simple and readily available equipment to document outlet anatomy and dynamics. Colonic transit time was examined in patients whose defecography and electromyography results were nondiagnostic and/or whose response to medical management was suboptimal, using a commercially available marker capsule, followed by abdominal x-rays. Retention of markers throughout the colon suggested colonic hypomotility or "inertia"; rectosigmoid retention confirmed functional outlet obstruction. With careful history, physical examination, and exclusion of organic causes, orderly application of readily available techniques can afford rapid, objective, and anatomically specific evidence upon which treatment of disordered defecation may be based.

Gastrointestinal transit after proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis or ileostomy

Proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis increases the frequency of stooling, perhaps due in part to the loss of an ileocecal or colonic braking effect on gastrointestinal transit. To assess whether colectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) or with ileostomy accelerates gastrointestinal transit, we studied 16 IPAA patients (mean +/- SEM stool frequency, 8 +/- 1 stools/day), 5 patients after colectomy and Brooke ileostomy, and 8 healthy, unoperated controls (1 +/- 1 stools/day). Gastric emptying of liquids and small bowel transit of chyme were measured concurrently with a dual isotope technique. Gastric emptying was similar among all groups. In contrast, postprandial small bowel transit of the head of a duodenal marker was slowed, not accelerated, in IPAA patients (178 +/- 26 min) compared to Brooke subjects (80 +/- 32 min, P less than 0.05) and controls (75 +/- 15 min, P less than 0.01). Maximal filling of both the ileal pouch (341 +/- 19 min) and the ileostomy bag (348 +/- 12 min) occurred later than filling of the colon in controls (243 +/- 32 min, P less than 0.01). Overall stool frequency did not correlate with small bowel transit in the ileoanal patients, but the two ileoanal subjects with greatest stool frequency (11 and 18 stools/day) had the earliest arrival of marker at the pouch. In conclusion, removal of the colon markedly slowed small bowel transit in most patients, although it did not alter gastric emptying of liquids. Creation of an ileal pouch and ileoanal anastomosis further slowed transit of the head of the meal.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)