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

What Is the Optimal Strategy for Pouch Salvage at Time of Redo Ileal-Pouch Anal Anastomosis? Pouch Repair with Reanastomosis vs Pouch Excision with Neopouch

BACKGROUND

The long-term risk of pouch failure after restorative proctocolectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) range from 5% to 15%. Salvage surgery for failing IPAA may be achieved by disconnecting the IPAA and either repairing and reusing the existing pouch (REP) or constructing a neopouch (NEO). We aimed to evaluate whether there are differences in long-term functional pouch survival and functional outcomes between the REP group and the NEO group. We hypothesized that patients undergoing REP have higher long-term pouch survival rates compared with patients who require NEO pouch construction.

STUDY DESIGN

Our prospectively maintained Pouch Registry was queried for patients who underwent a pouch salvage surgery with either pouch REP or NEO from 1988 to 2020. Patients who underwent pouch repair without disconnection from the anus were excluded. The primary endpoint was long-term pouch survival after redo pouch surgery. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported quality of life and pouch function.

RESULTS

Of 653 patients undergoing redo IPAA, 462 met inclusion criteria of transabdominal redo surgery with pouch reconnection: 243 (52.6%) had REP and 219 (47.4%) had NEO. Median age was 39 years and 59% were women. Median time between index and redo IPAA was 34 months for REP vs 54 months for NEO (p = 0.002). The 5-year pouch survival after redo IPAA was similar between REP (79.5%) and NEO (76.8%) groups (p = 0.4). Fewer patients in the REP group reported nighttime pad use (51.4% vs 68.2%, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Pouch survival and functional outcomes after salvage surgery for failing ileoanal pouch was similar regardless of pouch salvage procedure. When performing redo pouch surgery, surgeons should not hesitate to construct a new pouch if indicated.

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.

Classification of surgical causes of and approaches to the chronically failing ileoanal pouch

BACKGROUND

Although there are various surgical causes of and therapeutic approaches to the chronically failing ileoanal pouch (PF), cases are often detailed without distinguishing the exact cause and corresponding treatment. The aim of our study was to classify causes of PF and corresponding surgical treatment options, and to establish efficacy of surgical approach per cause.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all consecutive adult patients with chronic PF surgically treated at our tertiary hospital between July 2014 and March 2021. Patients were classified according to a proposed sub-classification for surgical related chronic PF. Results were reported accordingly.

RESULTS

A total of 59 procedures were completed in 50 patients (64% male, median age 45 years [IQR 34.5-54.3]) for chronic PF. Most patients had refractory ulcerative colitis as indication for their restorative proctocolectomy (68%). All patients could be categorized according to the sub-classification. Reasons for chronic PF were septic complications (n = 25), pouch body complications (n = 12), outlet problems (n = 11), cuff problems (n = 8), retained rectum (n = 2), and inlet problems (n = 1). For these indications, 17 pouches were excised, 10 pouch reconstructions were performed, and 32 pouch revision procedures were performed. The various procedures had different complication rates. Technical success rates of redo surgery for the different causes varied from 0 to 100%, with a 75% success rate for septic causes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our sub-classification for chronic PF and corresponding treatments is suitable for all included patients. Outcomes varied between causes and subsequent management. Chronic PF was predominantly caused by septic complications with redo surgery achieving a 75% technical success rate.

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.