Reoperative transabdominal surgery for ileoanal pouch salvage

Handsewn Versus Stapled IPAA in Redo Setting: Indications, Patient Characteristics, Operative, Functional, and Quality-of-Life Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The impact of the type of anastomosis on the outcomes of redo IPAA is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the indications, perioperative outcomes, and functional outcomes in patients undergoing stapled vs handsewn redo IPAA.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

This investigation is based on a single academic practice group experience with redo IPAA.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent redo IPAA for ileal pouch failure between September 2016 and May 2020 were included in the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Indications, perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, restrictions, and quality-of-life scores were compared between stapled and handsewn groups.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients underwent redo IPAA for ileal pouch failure of whom 76 (72%) had handsewn and 29 (28%) had stapled reanastomosis. The interval between the index and redo IPAA was shorter in stapled redo IPAA (median (interquartile range), Stapled: 3 years (1-4) vs handsewn: 7 years (3-17), p < 0.001). Handsewn anastomosis was more commonly used after pelvic sepsis (handsewn: n = 57 (76%) vs stapled: n = 13 (45%), p = 0.002). Overall postoperative morbidity was similar between the 2 groups (handsewn: n = 38 (50%) vs stapled: n = 16 (55%), p = 0.635). The number of bowel movements, pad use, daily restrictions, and Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores were similar between stapled and handsewn groups. Although daytime seepage was more common after handsewn anastomosis (handsewn, n = 20 (44%) vs stapled, n = 3 (14%), p = 0.013), nighttime seepage was similar in both groups. Pouch survival rates were comparable: 88% vs 92% (p > 0.05).

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited by its low study power and limited follow-up time.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who had pelvic sepsis after their index IPAA required handsewn anastomosis at higher rates than other redo cases. Although handsewn anastomosis is a more complex procedure, it is associated with morbidity, functional outcomes, and quality-of-life scores similar to stapled anastomosis for redo IPAA. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B580.

RECONSTRUCCIN DE ANASTOMOSIS ILEONAL CON RESERVORIO ILEAL CON SUTURA MANUAL VERSUS ANASTOMOSIS CON ENGRAPADO INDICACIONES, CARACTERSTICAS DEL PACIENTE, RESULTADOS OPERATORIOS, FUNCIONALES Y DE CALIDAD DE VIDA

ANTECEDENTES:Se desconoce el impacto en los resultados del tipo de anastomosis se rehace una anastomosis ileonal con reservorio ileal (IPAA).OBJETIVO:El propósito de este estudio es evaluar las indicaciones, resultados perioperatorios y funcionales en pacientes sometidos a una reconstrucción IPAA con engrapado vs sutura manual.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Esta investigación se basa en la experiencia de un solo grupo de práctica académica sobre reconstrucción IPAA.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron en el estudio pacientes que fueron sometidos a una reconstrucción de IPAA por falla del reservorio ileal entre septiembre del 2016 hasta mayo del 2020.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:se compararon indicaciones, resultados perioperatorios, funcionales, restricciones y puntuaciones de calidad de vida entre los grupos de engrapado y sutura manual.RESULTADOS:Un total de 105 pacientes fueron sometidos a una reconstrucción de IPAA por falla del reservorio ileal, de los cuales 76 (72%) fueron reanastomosis con sutura manual y 29 (28%) con engrapado. El intervalo entre la cirugía inicial y la reintervención de IPAA fue más corto en la reconstrucción de IPAA con engrapado [mediana (IQR), engrapado: 3 años (1-4) vs con sutura manual: 7 años (3-17), p <0,001]. La anastomosis con sutura manual se realizo con mayor frecuencia después de sepsis pélvica [sutura manual: n = 57 (76%) vs engrapado: n = 13 (45%), p = 0,002]. La morbilidad postoperatoria total fue similar entre los dos grupos [sutura manual: n = 38 (50%) vs engrapado: n = 16 (55%), p = 0,635]. El número de evacuaciones intestinales, el uso de paños protectores, restricciones diarias y puntuaciones en CGQL fueron similares entre los grupos de engrapado y sutura manual. Si bien el manchado por la mañana fue más común después de la anastomosis con sutura manual [sutura manual, n = 20 (44%) vs engrapado, n = 3 (14%), p = 0.013], el manchado por la noche fue similar en ambos grupos. Las tasas de sobrevida con reservorio fueron comparables; 88% vs 92% respectivamente (p> 0,05).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio está limitado por su bajo poder de estudio y su tiempo de seguimiento limitado.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes que tuvieron sepsis pélvica después de su primer IPAA, requirieron anastomosis con sutura manual en un porcentaje más alto que otros procedimientos de reintervención. Si bien es cierto, la anastomosis con sutura manual es un procedimiento mucho más complejo; este se asoció a una morbilidad, resultados funcionales y puntuaciones de calidad de vida similares en comparación a la anastomosis con engrapado cuando se rehace la IPAA. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B580. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

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.

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

PURPOSE

Data regarding safety and feasibility of re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) for failed ileal pouch in children are limited. In this study, we compared the short- and long-term outcomes of re-do IPAA in pediatric and adult populations in a case-matched setting.

METHODS

Between March 2007 and June 2017, pediatric patients undergoing a transabdominal re-do IPAA by single surgeon were reviewed and case matched with adult counterparts. Short- and long-term outcomes including complications, functional outcomes, and quality of life of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

60 patients were included (pediatric, n = 30; adult, n = 30). Time between index IPAA and re-do IPAA was shorter in the pediatric group (30 ± 26 vs 86 ± 74 months, p = 0.001). In the pediatric population, the existing pouch was more commonly used to construct the re-do pouch (n = 19 vs n = 12, p = 0.07). There was a trend towards the presence of less postoperative complications in pediatric group (n = 13 vs n = 20, p = 0.07). There were no reoperations or mortality. Long-term pouch survival was comparable between two groups (p = 0.96). Six re-do IPAAs failed in the study period.

CONCLUSION

Re-do IPAA is safe and feasible in pediatric population with failed IPAA and can be performed with similar short- and long-term outcomes compared to adults in experienced hands.