Transabdominal re-do pouch surgery in pediatric patients for failed ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a case matched study

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.

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.

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.