BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Failure rates of restorative proctocolectomy with ileo pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) range between 3.5 and 15%. Salvage surgery aims to preserve the pouch and transanal evacuation. We report our experience with salvage, review the outcomes of revisional pouch surgery, and propose a classification of pouch dysfunction. METHODS: We collected data on patients undergoing pouch salvage surgery between 1987 and 2014 at our hospital. Pre- and post-salvage functional data were assessed. Function at the 3-year follow-up was compared with that of matched IPAA controls (study patients:controls, 1:3). RESULTS: Considering only patients who underwent primary IPAA at our centre (n = 31), 5-year failure was higher after salvage compared with primary IPAA (28.8 vs 5.7% log rank test, p = 0.005). Overall, we included 39 patients, with eight additional patients who received primary IPAA elsewhere, undergoing 46 procedures. Most patients had a J-pouch (74.4%) and needed salvage for septic complications. A transperineal approach was used in 22 patients, whereas 17 underwent abdominal salvage, with 77.3 and 64.7% success rates, respectively. Minor surgery was effective but required repeated procedures. Overall failure was 28.2% at a median follow-up of 42 (1-153) months. A significant decrease in bowel frequency (p = 0.021) and rate of urgency (p = 0.009) was observed at the 3-year follow-up after salvage in 25 patients available for comparison. Functional results after major salvage procedures were poorer compared with healthy IPAA controls (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Salvage surgery is effective and safe in experienced teams, but the 5-year failure rate is higher after salvage than after successful primary pouch surgery. Sepsis brings about a higher risk of failure compared with mechanical causes of dysfunction.

Outcomes of salvage surgery for ileal pouch complications and dysfunctions. the experience of a referral centre and review of literature

Pellino, Gianluca;SELVAGGI, Francesco
2015

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Failure rates of restorative proctocolectomy with ileo pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) range between 3.5 and 15%. Salvage surgery aims to preserve the pouch and transanal evacuation. We report our experience with salvage, review the outcomes of revisional pouch surgery, and propose a classification of pouch dysfunction. METHODS: We collected data on patients undergoing pouch salvage surgery between 1987 and 2014 at our hospital. Pre- and post-salvage functional data were assessed. Function at the 3-year follow-up was compared with that of matched IPAA controls (study patients:controls, 1:3). RESULTS: Considering only patients who underwent primary IPAA at our centre (n = 31), 5-year failure was higher after salvage compared with primary IPAA (28.8 vs 5.7% log rank test, p = 0.005). Overall, we included 39 patients, with eight additional patients who received primary IPAA elsewhere, undergoing 46 procedures. Most patients had a J-pouch (74.4%) and needed salvage for septic complications. A transperineal approach was used in 22 patients, whereas 17 underwent abdominal salvage, with 77.3 and 64.7% success rates, respectively. Minor surgery was effective but required repeated procedures. Overall failure was 28.2% at a median follow-up of 42 (1-153) months. A significant decrease in bowel frequency (p = 0.021) and rate of urgency (p = 0.009) was observed at the 3-year follow-up after salvage in 25 patients available for comparison. Functional results after major salvage procedures were poorer compared with healthy IPAA controls (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Salvage surgery is effective and safe in experienced teams, but the 5-year failure rate is higher after salvage than after successful primary pouch surgery. Sepsis brings about a higher risk of failure compared with mechanical causes of dysfunction.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11591/333223
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 35
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 30
social impact