Temporary loop ileostomy following restorative proctocolectomy.

A retrospective study compared the outcome of restorative proctocolectomy in patients who had a covering ileostomy (n = 53) with those who had no proximal stoma (n = 32). Those who had a loop ileostomy had a higher incidence of anastomotic leakage (21 per cent), pelvic abscess (32 per cent) and postoperative fistula (28 per cent) than those with no covering ileostomy (6, 12 and 12 per cent respectively). Intestinal obstruction occurred in 23 per cent of those with an ileostomy, compared with 6 per cent in those who had no stoma. The functional outcome was identical.     

Closure of loop ileostomy after restorative proctocolectomy

The outcome of loop ileostomy closure was evaluated in 40 patients who had previously undergone restorative proctocolectomy. A standard operative technique was used which incorporated a circumstomal incision, non-resectional reconstruction and primary skin closure. Thirty-six patients (90%) enjoyed an uncomplicated recovery. One patient (3%) developed a superficial wound infection. Enterocutaneous fistula was not encountered. Small bowel obstruction occurred in three patients (8%) two of whom required a further laparotomy, but subsequently made an uncomplicated recovery. No incisional hernias were identified at follow-up. We conclude that loop ileostomy closure can be achieved with a low morbidity which should not preclude the use of this stoma in restorative proctocolectomy.     

Comparison of sutured and stapled closure of loop ileostomy after restorative proctocolectomy.

Twenty consecutive stapled loop ileostomy closures in patients treated by restorative proctocolectomy were compared with the previous 20 sutured loop ileostomy closures in a non-randomised audit. Complications occurred in six of 20 stapled closures compared with seven of 20 sutured closures. Operating time and hospital stay were similar. The additional expense of stapling does not seem justified as complication rates, operating time and hospital stay are similar to sutured closures.     

Comparison of loop versus end ileostomy for fecal diversion after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to compare the benefits versus complications of temporary loop ileostomies and end ileostomies in a consecutive series of patients undergoing colectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with diverting ileostomy for ulcerative colitis at the UCLA Medical Center during a 4-year period. An end ileostomy (EI) was used for 38 patients and a loop ileostomy (LI) for 39. All patients had a J pouch, with all EI patients having a hand-sewn ileoanal anastomosis, and 33 LI patients having a double-stapled anal anastomosis. EI closure was performed through a laparotomy, and LI closure was performed through a periileostomy incision. RESULTS: The mean operative time for EI closure was 157 minutes, and for LI closure was 103 minutes. The wound infection rate after EI closure was 5.3% and after LI was 10.3%. For EI patients, 2 of 38 patients required reoperation, compared with 5 of 39 for LI. The mean hospital stay after EI closure was 6.7 days, and after LI closure was 7.1 days. Peristomal skin irritation was more severe, more prolonged, and occurred in more than twice as many LI as EI patients. Home ostomy nurse care was necessary for a mean of two visits for EI patients and five visits for LI patients. The cost ofostomy supplies and care was more than double for LI patients compared with those with EI. Patient satisfaction and ability to resume physical and social activities early after ileostomy construction were much more favorable for EI than LI patients. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of shorter operating time for LI closure compared with EI closure is often outweighed by the complications and costs of LI stomal care and patient dissatisfaction. EI should be considered more frequently for temporary ileal diversion after restorative proctocolectomy.     

Diverting loop ileostomy after restorative proctocolectomy: predictors of poor outcome and poor quality of life

Aim Diverting loop ileostomy is used to minimize the impact of anastomotic complication after restorative proctocolectomy (RPC). However, the ileostomy itself may have complications and therefore affect quality of life (QOL). The aim of this study was to analyse the predictors of complications of the ileostomy formation and closure and of the QOL of these patients. Method Forty‐four consecutive patients who underwent RPC were enrolled. Records of the ileostomy follow‐up were retrieved from a prospectively collected database and QOL was assessed with the Stoma‐QOL questionnaire. Ileostomy site coordinates were measured. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed. Results In this series, three patients experienced peristomal herniae, two ileostomy stenosis, seven ileostomy retraction and fourteen peristomal dermatitis. Emergency surgery was the only predictor of parastomal hernia (P = 0.017). Stenosis correlated with the distance from the umbilicus (τ = 0.24, P = 0.021). Use of standard rod and retraction were independent predictors of peristomal dermatitis (P = 0.049 and P = 0.001). Stoma‐QOL was directly correlated to the age of the patients and to the occurrence of parastomal hernia (P = 0.001 and P = 0.021, respectively). After stoma closure, two patients reported wound sepsis and seven suffered obstructive episodes. Conclusion The predictors of negative outcome after construction of a diverting loop ileostomy after RPC were urgent surgery, use of standard rod, the distance of the stoma site from the umbilicus, parastomal herniae and the older age of patients.     

Comparison of restorative proctocolectomy with and without covering ileostomy in ulcerative colitis

The experience of restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis is reported in 16 consecutive patients with no covering ileostomy (group 2) in comparison with 15 patients with a covering stoma (group 1); in each group a J pouch was constructed. All patients had pre- and postoperative clinical and manometric evaluations of the functional result up to 12 months. There were no deaths or permanent failures. The number of early complications was four in each group. Re-ileostomy was needed in one patient of group 1, and an ileostomy was constructed in three patients of group 2. At 1 year after operation the functional results did not differ between groups 1 and 2 in terms of daily frequency of defaecation (mean 5.6 and 5.4 in 24 h respectively), or in terms of anal basal or maximal squeeze pressures. There was a significant (P less than 0.01) saving in total hospital stay (median 11 days) and in operating theatre time (mean 41 min) in patients with no covering ileostomy. It is concluded that a covering ileostomy may be unnecessary in restorative proctocolectomy, at least in suitable cases with no technical difficulty at the time of operation.     

Randomized clinical trial comparing loop ileostomy and loop transverse colostomy for faecal diversion following total mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare loop ileostomy and loop transverse colostomy as the preferred mode of faecal diversion following low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients who required proximal diversion after low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision were randomized to have either a loop ileostomy or a loop transverse colostomy. Postoperative morbidity, stoma-related problems and morbidity following closure were compared. RESULTS: From April 1999 to November 2000, 42 patients had a loop ileostomy and 38 had a loop transverse colostomy constructed following low anterior resection. Postoperative intestinal obstruction and prolonged ileus occurred more commonly in patients with an ileostomy (P = 0.037). There was no difference in time to resumption of diet, length of hospital stay following stoma closure and incidence of stoma-related complications after discharge from hospital. A total of seven patients had intestinal obstruction from the time of stoma creation to stoma closure (six following ileostomy and one following colostomy; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Intestinal obstruction and ileus are more common after loop ileostomy than loop colostomy. Loop transverse colostomy should be recommended as the preferred method of proximal faecal diversion.     

A selective approach to restorative proctocolectomy without ileostomy: a single centre experience

Objective A single surgeon series on complications and functional outcomes following restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) is presented. Method An ethically‐approved database was used to collect data on all patients undergoing RPC at a single institution. Patient demographics, operative details, complications and functional outcomes were assessed. The impact of ileostomy omission on outcomes was also assessed. Results Two hundred patients undergoing RPC between 1987 and 2006 were included. There were 122 (61.0%) males and the mean age at surgery was 37.6 years. A J pouch was constructed in 199 (99.5%) patients and an ileostomy omitted in 160 (80.0%). Since adopting a selective policy after the 36th consecutive patient in the series, only 9 (5.5%) patients have had an ileostomy constructed at the time of pouch construction. Complications occurred in 112 (56.3%) patients, with anastomotic stricture (20.6%) and pouchitis (28.6%) being the most common. Anastomotic stricture was more common in those patients receiving an ileostomy (43.6%vs 15.0%, P < 0.001), as were pouch‐cutaneous fistulae (5.1%vs 0.6%, P = 0.039) and pelvic sepsis (15.4%vs 5.0%, P = 0.023). Functional outcomes were good, with median 24‐h stool frequency of five motions at 1 year. There was increased urgency to defaecate which in part may be due to a significant decline in the use of antidiarrhoeal medication during follow up. Conclusions Selective omission of a covering ileostomy in most cases can produce good results following RPC with no increase in the risk of septic complications or pouch failure, and a decreased risk of anastomotic stricture, with maintenance of good function in the majority.     

Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy

BACKGROUND: Restorative proctocolectomy is increasingly being performed using minimally invasive surgery. In published series laparoscopically assisted techniques have usually included a suprapubic incision to enable major parts of the operation to be done openly. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients with familial adenomatous polyposis or ulcerative colitis underwent laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy using only a small perumbilical incision of 4 cm or less for vascular dissection and pouch formation; all other steps were performed entirely laparoscopically. Logistic regression was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: In four patients (8 per cent) the operation was converted to an open procedure. The diagnosis of ulcerative colitis was associated with a higher overall rate of complications (P = 0.011), and an increased body mass index (BMI) with a higher rate of major complications (P = 0.050). The occurrence of wound infection was related to the diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (P = 0.049). Conversion resulted in greater blood loss (P = 0.004), but not in a higher complication rate. No patient required a blood transfusion. Patients with an increased BMI and those taking immunosuppressive therapy had a longer hospital stay (P = 0.043). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy is technically feasible. Patients with ulcerative colitis and increased BMI have a higher risk of complications. This minimally invasive technique may reduce the need for perioperative blood transfusion.     

The continent ileostomy (Kock's pouch) versus the restorative proctocolectomy (pelvic pouch)

The Kock continent ileostomy and the ileoanal anastomosis with a pelvic ileal reservoir are each alternatives to conventional ileostomy in patients undergoing proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis and polyposis coli. Problems associated with construction of the nipple valve have been the chief factor limiting the popularity of continent ileostomy, but these can be minimized by strict attention to technique. The cumulative revision rate for nipple valve dysfunction over a 7-year period has been below 30%, and continence can usually be restored by reoperation. A successful pelvic reservoir procedure maintains both the normal defecation pathway and satisfactory continence, although rectal sensation is impaired; pelvic sepsis is the major postoperative risk (15–20%). Both types of operation are associated with nonspecific inflammation of the reservoir (pouchitis) in some 20% of patients. The pelvic pouch procedure is likely to become the chief method for preserving fecal continence after proctocolectomy, but the Kock pouch should be considered for inappropriate or unsuccessful cases.

---

Résumen La creación de una ileostomía continente de Kock y la anastomosis ileoanal con bolsa o reservorio ileal pélvico son las alternativas a una ileostomía convencional en pacientes que requieran proctocolectomía por colitis ulcerativa o poliposis familiar. Los problemas asociados con la construcción de la válvula mamelonada han constituido el factor limitante principal de la popularización de la ileostomía continente de Kock; éstos, sin embargo, pueden ser reducidos a un mínimo mediante estricta atención a la técnica quirÚrgica. La tasa acumulativa de revisión por disfunción de la válvula mamelonada en la ileostomía continente de Kock a lo largo de un periodo de 7 años de observación ha sido inferior a 30%; la función continente usualmente puede ser restablecida mediante la operación. Un exitoso procedimiento para crear un reservorio pélvico resulta en la conservación de la via de tránsito fecal normal y de la función continente, aun cuando la sensación rectal queda afectada. La sepsis pélvica representa el mayor riesgo postoperatorio (15–20%). Ambos tipos de operación se hallan asociados con inflamación no específica de la bolsa o reservorio (bolsitis) en alrededor del 20% de los pacientes. Es probable que el procedimiento de creación de la bolsa perineal se convierta en el método principal de preservación de la continencia fecal después de proctocolectomía, pero la bolsa de Kock debe ser considerada en casos no exitosos o en los cuales aquel no se considere el procedimiento apropiado.

---

Résumé L'iléostomie continente de Kock et l'anastomose iléorectale avec constitution d'un réservoir iléal pelvien représentent les 2 alternatives qui s'opposent à l'iléostomie classique chez les opérés qui subissent une proctocolectomie pour traiter la colite ulcéreuse et la polypose colique. Les problèmes engendrés par la constitution de l'iléostomie valvulaire ont limité la réputation de l'iléostomie continente mais ils peuvent Être surmontés en observant une technique parfaite. Au cours d'une période de 7 ans le taux des cas observés de dysfonctionnement n'a pas dépassé 30% et la continence put Être rétablie en réintervenant. L'anastomose iléoanale avec constitution d'un réservoir pelvien assure à la fois une défécation et une continence normales bien que la sensibilité rectale soit altérée; l'infection pelvienne (15% des cas) représente le risque opératoire majeur. Les deux interventions peuvent se compliquer d'une inflammation de la poche réservoir chez 20% des opérés. Actuellement l'intervention pelvienne est préférée à l'opération de Kock mais celle-ci reste l'ultime recours en cas d'échec de celle-là.

     

Complications following restorative proctocolectomy in children

Background

Adverse outcomes following restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) in adults have been attributed to steroid exposure and use of hand-sutured anastomoses. This study analyses complications in children undergoing RPC.

Methods

This study is a retrospective review of all children undergoing RPC in an English regional center over a 10-year period. The main outcome measure was defined as a complication within 30 days of surgery. Logistic regression analysis was used with possible explanatory variables (eg, steroid use, indication for surgery, weight and height z scores, hematologic indices, degree of blood loss, and use of laparoscopic surgery).

Results

Sixty (33 female) patients underwent RPC at a median age of 13.5 years. Of these, 16 had an operative complication and 17 had a late complication. Only severe acute colitis with inability to induce remission as an indication for surgery was significant in predicting operative complications (odds ratio, 6.8 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-37]; P = .03).

Conclusions

Severe acute colitis resistant to medical therapy but not steroid use or hand-sutured anastomoses appears to be a risk factor for complication. This differs from the adult experience.     

Vitamin B12 deficiency following restorative proctocolectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Restorative proctocolectomy (RP) involves terminal ileal resection and formation of a small bowel reservoir that predisposes to bacterial overgrowth. It was anticipated that these patients would be at risk of vitamin B12 deficiency. METHOD: Vitamin B12 levels were measured sequentially in 171 patients who underwent RP. Prospective results were obtained from all 20 patients undergoing pouch formation after the commencement of the study. Further results were obtained retrospectively from case notes and computerized laboratory records of the 151 patients who underwent RP prior to the commencement of the study and these were correlated with the results of follow-up samples taken prospectively from the same patients after the commencement of the study. The median age of the patients was 40 years (range: 13-67) and the median duration of follow up was 5.4 years (range: 1-12). Patients with an abnormally low serum B12 level underwent both a Schilling and a hydrogen breath test. Eight of these patients were then treated with oral vitamin B12. RESULTS: Abnormally low serum B12 levels were found in 25% of patients. Forty per cent of our patient group had three or more sequential B12 measurements and of these, 66% showed steadily declining B12 levels. Ninety-four per cent of patients with low B12 had a normal Schilling test and were negative for bacterial overgrowth. CONCLUSION: Subnormal vitamin B12 levels develop in almost one-quarter of patients after pouch surgery. The exact mechanism for B12 deficiency in these patients is uncertain. In the majority of patients undergoing RP, vitamin B12 levels fall on sequential measurement. Serum B12 levels should be measured during follow up and pouch patients with subnormal B12 levels, should see them successfully restored to a normal value after treatment with oral B12 replacement therapy.