Restorative proctocolectomy with two different pouch designs: few complications with good function

Complications and failure after Kock continent ileostomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A significant number of patients experience complications of the Kock pouch (KP) warranting revision or excision. This systematic review aimed to assess the pooled prevalence and risk factors for complications and failure of the KP.

METHODS

This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic review (CRD42023416961) searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies on adult patients with Kock continent ileostomy published after the year 2000. The main outcome measures were revision, complications, and failure of the KP. Risk factors for complications and failure were assessed using a meta-regression analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-1 tool. A proportional meta-analysis of the main outcomes was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies (2042 patients) were included. The weighted mean prevalence of complications was 60.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 46.1-74.7%], of pouch revision was 46.6% (95% CI: 38.5-54.7%), and of pouch failure was 12.9% (95% CI: 9.3-16.4%). Studies conducted in the USA had a mean failure prevalence of 12.6% (95% CI: 6.2-18.9%) comparable to studies conducted in Europe (11.1%; 95% CI: 7.5-14.7%). Factors associated with higher complications were increased body mass index (BMI) and previous ileoanal pouch anastomosis (IPAA); however, these factors were not associated with increased pouch failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The KP is a highly complex operation as shown by a pooled complication prevalence of 60%, and thus, it should be only performed by experienced surgeons. Despite the high prevalence of complications and need for revisional surgery, patients are keen to preserve their KP. Increased BMI and a previous failed IPAA are risk factors for pouch complications, but not failure.

Incidence and causes of failure in various anatomical pouch designs 20 years after surgical primary ileal-pouch anal anastomosis construction

PURPOSE

Since the introduction of ileo-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery, various pouch designs have been applied. Recently, there has been renewed interest in creating larger pouch designs to reduce defecation frequency after pouch surgery. The aim of this study was to assess chronic pouch failure (PF) rates and causes in alternative S or septated (SP) pouches when compared to J pouches and B- shaped adaptations.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients that underwent primary IPAA construction surgery from 1978-2000. Pouch designs were subdivided in J and B (J/B), and larger pouches (S/SP). PF included need for a pouch excision, redo pouch procedure, revisional pouch surgery, or permanent ileostomy surgery. Outcomes of this study were incidence and causes for PF per pouch design group.

RESULTS

Out of 200 patients who underwent IPAA surgery, 19 had an S/SP design and 181 had a J/B design. After a follow-up of 27.0 (IQR 23.3 - 29.0) years, 45/200 (22.5%) patients who underwent IPAA surgery between 1975-2000 developed PF. Some 78.9% of patients with an S/SP pouch developed PF, compared to 16.7% of patients with a J/B pouch (p < 0.01). Mechanical outlet issues occurred more often in S/SP pouches when compared to J/B (42.1% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.01), and were predominantly caused by septal- or pouch wall intussusception and efferent loop kinking (S-pouch).

CONCLUSION

Despite an inevitable proportion of bias, the current study revealed that S/SP pouches were characterized by an increased PF incidence due to emptying problems after long-term follow-up when compared to J/B pouches. Constructing an S pouch or large septated reservoir at index surgery should therefore be questioned because of a shorter longevity.

Continent Ileostomy as an Alternative to End Ileostomy

Continent ileostomy (CI) was once a prevalent surgical technique for patients who required total proctocolectomy but then gave way to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) after 1980. Although IPAA has been the gold standard procedure preferred by most patients when total proctocolectomy is required, due to its imitation of physiological function of rectum and preserved function of anus, various complications have been observed with a relatively high rate of morbidity that could affect pouch longevity. Once serious complications such as pelvic abscesses and/or fistula occur, the pouch often needs to be removed. In addition, for some patients with a shortened small intestine or foreshortened mesentery, it is impossible for the ileal pouch to reach the pelvic floor, thus making the creation of an IPAA difficult. Previously, most of these patients would be referred for an end ileostomy, with an associated poor quality of life. In this circumstance, we propose that CI may deserve a reappraisal and serve as an alternative. In this article, we review the indications, contraindications, technique evolution, and outcomes of CI.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing adverse events and functional outcomes of different pouch designs after restorative proctocolectomy

AIM

There is no consensus as to which ileoanal pouch design provides better outcomes after restorative proctocolectomy. This study compares different pouch designs.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature was performed. A random effects meta-analytical model was used to compare adverse events and functional outcome.

RESULTS

Thirty comparative studies comparing J, W, S and K pouch designs were included. No significant differences were identified between the different pouch designs with regard to anastomotic dehiscence, anastomotic stricture, pelvic sepsis, wound infection, pouch fistula, pouch ischaemia, perioperative haemorrhage, small bowel obstruction, pouchitis and sexual dysfunction. The W and K designs resulted in fewer cases of pouch failure compared with the J and S designs. J pouch construction resulted in a smaller maximum pouch volume compared with W and K pouches. Stool frequency per 24 h and during daytime was higher following a J pouch than W, S or K constructions. The J design resulted in increased faecal urgency and seepage during daytime compared with the K design. The use of protective pads during daytime and night-time was greater with a J pouch compared to S or K. The use of antidiarrhoeal medication was greater after a J reservoir than a W reservoir. Difficulty in pouch evacuation requiring intubation was higher with an S pouch than with W or J pouches.

CONCLUSION

Despite its ease of construction and comparable complication rates, the J pouch is associated with higher pouch failure rates and worse function. Patient characteristics, technical factors and surgical expertise should be considered when choosing pouch design.

MRI defecography of the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis-contributes little to the understanding of functional outcome

PURPOSE

Variability in functional outcome after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is to a large extent unexplained. The aim of this study was to use MRI to evaluate the morphology, emptying pattern and other pathology that may explain differences in functional outcome between well-functioning and poorly functioning pouch patients. A secondary aim was to establish a reference of normal MRI findings in pelvic pouch patients.

METHODS

From a previous study, the best and worst functioning patients undergoing IPAA surgery between 2000 and 2013 had been identified and examined with manovolumetric tests (N = 47). The patients were invited to do a pelvic MRI investigating pouch morphology and emptying patterns, followed by a pouch endoscopy.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients underwent MRI examination. We found no significant morphological or dynamic differences between the well-functioning and poorly functioning pouch patients. There was no correlation between urge volume and the volume of the bony pelvis, and no correlation between emptying difficulties or leakage and dynamic MRI findings. Morphological MRI signs of inflammation were present in the majority of patients and were not correlated to histological signs of inflammation. Of the radiological signs of inflammation, only pouch wall thickness correlated to endoscopic pouchitis disease activity index scores.

CONCLUSION

It seems MRI does not increase the understanding of factors contributing to functional outcome after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Unless there is a clinical suspicion of perianal/peripouch disease or pelvic sepsis, MRI does not add value as a diagnostic tool for pelvic pouch patients. Endoscopy remains the golden standard for diagnosing pouch inflammation.

Determinants of optimal bowel function in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis - physiological differences contributing to pouch function

BACKGROUND

Variability in functional outcome after ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is to a large extent unexplained. The aim of this study was to perform multiple physiological and biochemical tests including an endoscopic examination with histology on IPAA patients with well and poorly functioning pouches to determine factors, or combinations thereof, contributing to functional outcome.

METHODS

All patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing restorative proctocolectomy between 2000 and 2013 (N = 108) were interviewed using a pouch functioning score. The best and worst functioning quartiles were invited to undergo examination with a barostat measuring pouch volume at preset variable distension pressures, and a pouch endoscopy.

RESULTS

Forty five of 58 eligible patients agreed to participate. The most significant physiological parameter differing between the well and poorly functioning pouches was pouch volume at first sensation, urge and discomfort (p value <.001). Urge volumes were 213 (CI 171-256) ml for poorly and 352 (CI 305-401) ml for well functioning pouches. Pouchitis episodes were negatively correlated to function. The poorly functioning patients had a higher prevalence of histological signs of inflammation and hand-sewn anastomosis, and a longer remaining rectal cuff, however, nonsignificant. The pouch pressure at sensation thresholds did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pouch volume is the most dominant predictor of pouch function in this study. The present comprehensive study of a multitude of different factors that possibly could be contributing to functional outcome, failed to shed much further light on the functional variability among pouch patients. The pouch physiology remains to a large extent unexplained.

[How does the ileoanal pouch keep its promises? : Functioning of the ileoanal pouch after restorative proctocolectomy]

Restorative proctocolectomy with an ileoanal pouch anastomosis (IAPA) is the surgical therapy of choice for patients with refractory ulcerative colitis and/or associated (pre)neoplastic lesions. It is predominantly performed laparoscopically. Reconstruction with a J‑pouch is the most frequently applied variant due to the ideal combination of technical simplicity and good long-term results. In the present review, potential postoperative pouch complications, their risk factors, diagnostics and surgical management, as well as mid-term and long-term quality of life after pouch construction are differentially presented based on the current literature.

[The technique of restorative proctocolectomy with ileal J‑pouch : Standards and controversies]

BACKGROUND

Restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) is the standard of care in the case of medically refractory disease and in neoplasia in ulcerative colitis (UC).

OBJECTIVES

This review aims at providing an overview of the current evidence on standards, innovations, and controversies with regard to the surgical technique of RPC.

RESULTS

RPC is the standard of care in the surgical management of UC refractory to medical treatment and in neoplasia. Due to its simplicity and good functional outcomes, the J‑pouch is the most used pouch design. RPC is usually performed as a two-stage procedure. In the presence of risk factors, a three-stage procedure should be performed. The technically more demanding mucosectomy and hand sewn anastomosis does not seem to result in a better oncologic outcome than stapled anastomosis. Functional results appear marginally better after stapled anastomosis, but the rectal cuff should not exceed 2 cm in this reconstruction. The laparoscopic approach is at least as good as the open approach. For the new, innovative surgical approaches such as robotics and transanal surgery, only feasibility but no advantages have yet been demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

The evidence in regard to controversial points remains limited.