Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Ochsner Journal
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Ochsner Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Restorative Proctocolectomy: The Current Ochsner Experience

Shahrazad Talebinejad, Terry C. Hicks, David A. Margolin, Charles B. Whitlow, H. David Vargas and David E. Beck
Ochsner Journal December 2013, 13 (4) 512-516;
Shahrazad Talebinejad
*Department of General Surgery, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Terry C. Hicks
†Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David A. Margolin
†Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA
‡The University of Queensland School of Medicine, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charles B. Whitlow
†Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H. David Vargas
†Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David E. Beck
†Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA
‡The University of Queensland School of Medicine, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Restorative proctocolectomy with an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is a technically demanding procedure to treat ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. Since its initial description almost 30 years ago, the operation has undergone technical and perioperative modifications to improve the patient's experience.

Methods We performed a retrospective review of the records of patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy at the Ochsner Clinic Foundation Hospital from 2008 to 2012 and compared data from that period to data from 1989-1995 (prior to laparoscopic pouch surgery) to determine factors associated with patient outcome.

Results Ileal pouch-anal procedures were performed in 77 patients. The 30 male and 47 female patients ranged in age from 13 to 63 years (mean, 34.5 years). The indications for the procedure were ulcerative colitis in 62 patients, polyposis coli in 12 patients, and Crohn disease in 3 patients. Forty patients (52%) had laparoscopic-assisted procedures. The overall hospital length of stay for pouch creation averaged 6.9 days (range 3-29) and for ileostomy closure averaged 4.3 days (range 1-15). No perioperative deaths occurred within 30 days. Complications occurred in 37.7% of patients. Compared to a previous report of 72 patients from 1989 to 1995, the recent group had more laparoscopic procedures, shorter hospital stays, a smaller percentage of 3-stage procedures, and fewer general and pouch-related complications. Pouch failures were similar for both groups.

Conclusion Advances in operative techniques and perioperative management have improved the outcome of restorative proctocolectomies.

Keywords
  • Anastomosis—surgical
  • colonic pouches
  • laparoscopy
  • postoperative complications
  • proctocolectomy—restorative

INTRODUCTION

Restorative proctocolectomy with an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a technically demanding procedure used to treat patients with chronic ulcerative colitis (CUC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Even in experienced hands, this procedure is associated with significant complications. Overall complication rates have ranged from 29% to 87%, and pouch failure has varied from 3% to 13%.1-9 Since its initial description almost 30 years ago, the operation has undergone both technical and perioperative modifications with the goal of improving the patient's experience. Advances in operative techniques such as laparoscopy and perioperative management have had significant impacts on patient outcome.

To document the significance of these changes, we reviewed our recent experience with IPAA to determine (1) if there was a difference in surgical outcome of our recent procedures compared with previously reported experience, and (2) what factors were associated with surgical outcome.

METHODS

After obtaining institutional review board approval, we retrospectively reviewed the electronic hospital and clinical records for cases of restorative proctocolectomy performed from January 2008 to December 2012 at the Ochsner Clinic Foundation Hospital. All procedures were performed by board-certified colon and rectal surgeons with the assistance of a colon and rectal surgery fellow or general surgery chief resident. The variables recorded included patient demographics, clinical diagnosis (ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, FAP), operative technique, type of ileal-anal pouch construction (J, S, hand sewn, or double stapled), number of operations, hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications. Hospital LOS was calculated from the date of surgery to date of discharge.

Complications were categorized as general (ie, those associated with any major abdominal operation) and as pouch related. Follow-up was the last documented patient contact. Data on the current patients (Group 1: 2008-2012) were compared to data on a previously reported Group 2 (1989-1995) to quantify the changes in patients' experience. These time periods were chosen because they encompass alterations in operative techniques (laparoscopy) and perioperative management (enhanced recovery pathways [ERP]), and the early group corresponded to our institution's previous experience.9

Statistical analysis was performed using StatView (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Comparisons of complications between groups were performed with either a Fisher exact test or a chi square analysis. For comparison of continuous variables, Student t test was used. Significance was defined as P<0.05.

RESULTS

From 2008-2012, 77 patients underwent restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA. Follow-up ranged from 2 weeks to 5.3 years after ileostomy closure. The 30 male and 47 female patients ranged in age from 13 to 63 years (mean, 34.5 years) and had a body mass index (BMI) of 18 to 41 (mean, 26.8). The indications for the procedure were ulcerative colitis in 62 patients, polyposis coli in 12 patients, and Crohn disease in 3 patients. Forty patients (52%) had laparoscopic-assisted procedures compared to 37 patients (48%) who had conventional open procedures. The IPAAs were constructed as a J-type reservoir in 76 patients and an S-pouch in 1 patient. The anastomoses were created with a double-stapled technique in 75 patients and were hand sewn in 2 patients (1 with an S-pouch). The majority (74 patients) received a diverting loop ileostomy. Demographics and clinical characteristics of the patients are summarized in Table 1. Data comparison between the 2 groups showed only one significant difference: significantly more S-pouches were done in the earlier group.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

Ileostomy closure was planned to occur approximately 6 weeks later provided there were no complications or evidence of extravasation during contrast enema examination. Ten patients presenting with toxic colitis or severe malnutrition or comorbidities had their procedures performed in 3 stages: initial colectomy and ileostomy, pouch construction, and loop ileostomy closure.

A comparison of the laparoscopic vs open procedures in Group 1 is presented in Table 2. The overall hospital LOS for pouch creation averaged 6.9 days (range 3-29) and for ileostomy closure averaged 4.3 days (range 1-15). There was no difference in LOS between laparoscopic pouch procedures (7.6 days) and open-pouch procedures (6.6 days, P=0.28). BMI was similar in both groups. There were no perioperative deaths within 30 days. Total complications occurred in 29 patients, for a 37.7% overall complication rate. Again there was no difference in complication rate between open and laparoscopic patients nor was there a significant difference in LOS secondary to complications. There was no correlation between BMI, disease state, and overall or pouch-related complications. General complications are listed in Table 3 and pouch-specific complications are listed in Table 4.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Laparoscopic vs Open Procedures in Group 1 (n=77)

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3.

General Complications

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 4.

Pouch-Specific Complications

Compared to a previous report of 72 patients from 1989 to 1995, the recent group had more laparoscopic procedures, a smaller number of 3-stage operations, shorter LOS, and fewer general and pouch-related complications. The recent group had a lower incidence of small-bowel obstruction. Pouch failures were similar for both groups.

DISCUSSION

IPAA is a successful operation for patients with CUC and FAP, but even when performed by experienced surgeons, it carries a risk of short-term, resolvable morbidities and a small but recognized mortality and major morbidity. This complex operation removes the diseased colon and rectum and creates a neo-rectum using a pouch constructed from the distal ileum. Operative times range from 2-6 hours. The ileal pouch can be constructed as a J-type reservoir using 2 12-18 cm loops of ileum or as an S-pouch using 3 8-10 cm limbs.10 This operation can be done with open or laparoscopic techniques. A laparoscopic procedure has longer operative times, but the smaller incisions usually lead to a quicker recovery. To minimize the clinical consequences of potential complications, a diverting loop ileostomy is frequently used (Figure). The ileostomy is closed 5-12 weeks after creation.

Figure.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure.

Restorative proctocolectomy.

Our results in 77 patients compare favorably with other large series. Our overall morbidity of 37.7% and pouch-related complications are similar to other reported series.1-9,11-20 The most common perioperative pouch complications are fistulas, anastomotic leaks, and abscesses21-22 that can often be managed with medication or additional operative procedures.19,23-25 Unsuccessful management of these complications may lead to pouch failure and removal. Pouch removal was required in 4 patients (5.2%). This result compares well with other series that have reported excision rates of 3% to 13% (median of 6%).1-9,11-20

Comparing our previous experience (1989-1995) to the present series, patients referred for IPAA had a similar frequency of inflammatory bowel disease but a smaller number of 3-stage procedures.9 The frequency of total and pouch-specific complications was lower in the recent period, but the number of pouches requiring excision was similar. Significantly, our recent patients had a lower incidence of small-bowel obstruction that may have resulted from the increased use of laparoscopic techniques and antiadhesion barriers such as Seprafilm (Genzyme, Bridgewater, NJ).

Perioperative management also changed in the recent group. ERPs have included early feeding and multimodality pain management that included nonopioid adjuvants such as intravenous acetaminophen and ibuprofen, as well intraoperative local infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine (Exparel). This resulted in the shorter LOS for patients with both CUC and FAP.

The number of staged procedures was reduced in the recent time period but remains prudent for selected patients: those on biologic agents and those with severe disease or malnutrition. Two other studies in the literature concur with the use of staged procedures in selected patients.26,27

Several factors are associated with surgical outcome of the IPAA: technical experience, perioperative care, surgical reoperation for pouch complications when indicated, and the judicious use of a 3-stage procedure in patients who are malnourished or present with acute or toxic colitis.

CONCLUSION

Restorative proctocolectomy with an IPAA remains the procedure of choice for treating patients with CUC and FAP. Advances in operative techniques and perioperative management have improved the outcome of this demanding procedure.

This article meets the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties Maintenance of Certification competencies for Patient Care and Medical Knowledge.

Footnotes

  • The authors have no financial or proprietary interest in the subject matter of this article.

  • © Academic Division of Ochsner Clinic Foundation

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Fazio VW,
    2. Ziv Y,
    3. Church JM,
    4. et al.
    (8, 1995) Ileal pouch-anal anastomoses complications and function in 1005 patients. Ann Surg 222(2):120–127, pmid:7639579.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Pemberton JH,
    2. Kelly KA,
    3. Beart RW Jr.,
    4. Dozois RR,
    5. Wolff BG,
    6. Ilstrup DM
    (10, 1987) Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. Long-term results. Ann Surg 206(4):504–513, pmid:3662660.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Marcello PW,
    2. Roberts PL,
    3. Schoetz DJ Jr.,
    4. Coller JA,
    5. Murray JJ,
    6. Veidenheimer MC
    (5, 1993) Long-term results of the ileoanal pouch procedure. Arch Surg 128(5):500–503, pmid:8489382, discussion 503-504.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Keighley MR,
    2. Grobler S,
    3. Bain I
    (5, 1993) An audit of restorative proctocolectomy. Gut 34(5):680–684, pmid:8504971.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Wexner SD,
    2. Wong WD,
    3. Rothenberger DA,
    4. Goldberg SM
    (1, 1990) The ileoanal reservoir. Am J Surg 159(1):178–183, pmid:2153008, discussion 183-185.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Fleshman JW,
    2. Cohen Z,
    3. McLeod RS,
    4. Stern H,
    5. Blair J
    (1, 1988) The ileal reservoir and ileoanal anastomosis procedure. Factors affecting technical and functional outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 31(1):10–16, pmid:3366021.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. de Zeeuw S
    (7, 2012) Ahmed Ali U, Donders RA, Hueting WE, Keus F, van Laarhoven CJ. Update of complications and functional outcome of the ileo-pouch anal anastomosis: overview of evidence and meta-analysis of 96 observational studies. Int J Colorectal Dis 27(7):843–853, pmid:22228116, Epub 2012 Jan 10. Erratum in: Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012 Apr;27(4):553.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. McMullen K,
    2. Hicks TC,
    3. Ray JE,
    4. Gathright JB,
    5. Timmcke AE
    (Nov-Dec 1991) Complications associated with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. World J Surg 15(6):763–766, pmid:1662842, discussion 766-777.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Blumberg D,
    2. Opelka FG,
    3. Hicks TC,
    4. Timmcke AE,
    5. Beck DE
    (5, 2001) Restorative proctocolectomy: Ochsner Clinic experience. South Med J 94(5):467–471, pmid:11372792.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Carne PW,
    2. Pemberton JH
    (2, 2004) Technical aspects of ileoanal pouch surgery. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 17(1):35–41, pmid:20011283.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Becker JM,
    2. Alexander DP
    (3, 1991) Colectomy, mucosal proctectomy, and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. A prospective trial of optimal antibiotic management. Ann Surg 213(3):242–247, pmid:1847796.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Choen S,
    2. Tsunoda A,
    3. Nicholls RJ
    (4, 1991) Prospective randomized trial comparing anal function after hand sewn ileoanal anastomosis with mucosectomy versus stapled ileoanal anastomosis without mucosectomy in restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 78(4):430–434, pmid:2032101.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Hallgren TA,
    2. Fasth SB,
    3. Oresland TO,
    4. Hultén LA
    (12, 1995) Ileal pouch anal function after endoanal mucosectomy and handsewn ileoanal anastomosis compared with stapled anastomosis without mucosectomy. Eur J Surg 161(12):915–921, pmid:8775636.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Reilly WT,
    2. Pemberton JH,
    3. Wolff BG,
    4. et al.
    (6, 1997) Randomized prospective trial comparing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis performed by excising the anal mucosa to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis performed by preserving the anal mucosa. Ann Surg 225(6):666–676, pmid:9230807, discussion 676-677.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Nasmyth DG,
    2. Williams NS,
    3. Johnston D
    (5, 1986) Comparison of the function of triplicated and duplicated pelvic ileal reservoirs after mucosal proctectomy and ileo-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and adenomatous polyposis. Br J Surg 73(5):361–366, pmid:3708281.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Nicholls RJ,
    2. Pezim ME
    (6, 1985) Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: a comparison of three reservoir designs. Br J Surg 72(6):470–474, pmid:4016516.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tuckson WB,
    2. Fazio VW
    (1, 1991) Functional comparison between double and triple ileal loop pouches. Dis Colon Rectum 34(1):17–21, pmid:1846798.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Becker JM,
    2. Raymond JL
    (10, 1986) Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. A single surgeon's experience with 100 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 204(4):375–383, pmid:3767475.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. MacRae HM,
    2. McLeod RS,
    3. Cohen Z,
    4. O'Connor BI,
    5. Ton EN
    (3, 1997) Risk factors for pelvic pouch failure. Dis Colon Rectum 40(3):257–262, pmid:9118737.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Dozois RR,
    2. Kelly KA,
    3. Welling DR,
    4. et al.
    (9, 1989) Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: comparison of results in familial adenomatous polyposis and chronic ulcerative colitis. Ann Surg 210(3):268–271, pmid:2549890, discussion 272-273.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Cohen Z,
    2. McLeod RS,
    3. Stern H,
    4. Grant D,
    5. Nordgren S
    (11, 1985) The pelvic pouch and ileoanal anastomosis procedure. Surgical technique and initial results. Am J Surg 150(5):601–607, pmid:4061741.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Whitlow CB,
    2. Opelka FG,
    3. Gathright JB Jr.,
    4. Beck DE
    (7, 1997) Treatment of colorectal and ileoanal anastomotic sinuses. Dis Colon Rectum 40(7):760–763, pmid:9221848.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Ogunbiyi OA,
    2. Korsgen S,
    3. Keighley MR
    (5, 1997) Pouch salvage. Long-term outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 40(5):548–552, pmid:9152181.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Herbst F,
    2. Sielezneff I,
    3. Nicholls RJ
    (3, 1996) Salvage surgery for ileal pouch outlet obstruction. Br J Surg 83(3):368–371, pmid:8665196.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Gemlo BT,
    2. Wong WD,
    3. Rothenberger DA,
    4. Goldberg SM
    (7, 1992) Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Patterns of failure. Arch Surg 127(7):784–786, pmid:1524477, discussion 787.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Galandiuk S,
    2. Pemberton JH,
    3. Tsao J,
    4. Ilstrup DM,
    5. Wolff BG
    (9, 1991) Delayed ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Complications and functional results. Dis Colon Rectum 34(9):755–758, pmid:1914739.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Penna C,
    2. Daude F,
    3. Parc R,
    4. et al.
    (4, 1993) Previous subtotal colectomy with ileostomy and sigmoidostomy improves the morbidity and early functional results after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum 36(4):343–348, pmid:8458259.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ochsner Journal
Vol. 13, Issue 4
Dec 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ochsner Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Restorative Proctocolectomy: The Current Ochsner Experience
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ochsner Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ochsner Journal web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Restorative Proctocolectomy: The Current Ochsner Experience
Shahrazad Talebinejad, Terry C. Hicks, David A. Margolin, Charles B. Whitlow, H. David Vargas, David E. Beck
Ochsner Journal Dec 2013, 13 (4) 512-516;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Restorative Proctocolectomy: The Current Ochsner Experience
Shahrazad Talebinejad, Terry C. Hicks, David A. Margolin, Charles B. Whitlow, H. David Vargas, David E. Beck
Ochsner Journal Dec 2013, 13 (4) 512-516;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Cited By...

  • Recent Publications by Ochsner Authors: October 2013 - March 2014
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Adductor Canal Blocks Are Not Associated With Improved Early Postoperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty
  • Differential Impact of Body Mass Index in Hip Arthroscopy: Obesity Does Not Impact Outcomes
  • Revision Carpal Tunnel Release With Umbilical Cord Allograft: A Four-Year Retrospective Cohort Study
Show more ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Anastomosis—surgical
  • colonic pouches
  • laparoscopy
  • postoperative complications
  • proctocolectomy—restorative

Current Post at the Blog

American Association for the Advancement of Science Surveys Scientists About Article Publishing Charges—And Uncovers More Problems

Our Content

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Featured Contributors
  • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • Archive at PubMed Central

Information & Forms

  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Submission Checklist
  • FAQ
  • License for Publishing-Author Attestation
  • Patient Consent Form
  • Submit a Manuscript

Services & Contacts

  • Permissions
  • Sign up for our electronic table of contents
  • Feedback Form
  • Contact Us

About Us

  • Editorial Board
  • About the Ochsner Journal
  • Ochsner Health
  • University of Queensland-Ochsner Clinical School
  • Alliance of Independent Academic Medical Centers

© 2023 Ochsner Clinic Foundation

Powered by HighWire