Emre Gorgun

Loop Ileostomy Closure After Restorative Proctocolectomy: Outcome in 1,504 Patients

PURPOSERoutine use of a temporary loop ileostomy for diversion after restorative proctocolectomy is controversial because of reported morbidity associated with its creation and closure. This study intended to review our experience with loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy and determine the complication rates. In addition, complication rates between handsewn and stapled closures were compared.METHODSOur Department Pelvic Pouch Database was queried and charts reviewed for all patients who had ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy from August 1983 to March 2002.RESULTSA total of 1,504 patients underwent ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy during a 19-year period. The median length of hospitalization was three (range, 1–40) days and the overall complication rate was 11.4 percent. Complications included small-bowel obstruction (6.4 percent), wound infection (1.5 percent), abdominal septic complications (1 percent), and enterocutaneous fistulas (0.6 percent). Handsewn closure was performed in 1,278 patients (85 percent) and stapled closure in 226 (15 percent). No significant differences in complication rates and length of hospitalization were found between handsewn and stapled closure techniques.CONCLUSIONSOur results demonstrated that ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy can be achieved with a low morbidity and a short hospitalization stay. In addition, we found that complication rates and length of hospitalization were similar between handsewn and stapled closures.

The Outcome After Restorative Proctocolectomy With or Without Defunctioning Ileostomy

PurposeControversy exists regarding the safety for omission of diverting ileostomy in restorative proctocolectomy because of fears of increased septic complications. This study was designed to evaluate the outcomes of restorative proctocolectomy in a consecutive series of patients by comparing postoperative complications, functional results, and quality of life in patients with and without diverting ileostomy.MethodsData regarding demographics, length of stay, surgical characteristics, and complications were reviewed and recorded according to the presence (n= 1,725) or absence (n = 277) of a diverting ileostomy at the time of pelvic pouch surgery. Criteria for omission of ileostomy included: stapled anastomosis, tension-free anastomosis, intact tissue rings, good hemostasis, absence of airleaks, malnutrition, toxicity, anemia, and prolonged consumption of steroids. Functional outcome and quality of lifeindicators were prospectively recorded and compared.ResultsPatients in the ileostomy group had greater body surface area and older mean age at time of surgery, were taking greater doses of steroids preoperatively, and required more blood transfusions at the time of surgery compared with the one-stage (P < 0.05). There were no differences between the two groups in septic complications (P > 0.05). Early postoperative ileus was more common in the one-stage group (P < 0.001). There were no differences between the groups in quality of life and functional outcomes.ConclusionsFor carefully selected patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, omission of diverting ileostomy is a safe procedure that does not lead to an increase inseptic complications or mortality. Quality of life and functional results are similar to those who undergo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis with diversion, provided that certain selection factors are considered.

Vaginal delivery after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis : A word of caution

PURPOSEThis study was designed to evaluate the impact of childbirth on anal sphincter integrity and function, functional outcome, and quality of life in females with restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.METHODSThe patients who had at least one live birth after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis were asked to return for a comprehensive assessment. They were asked to complete the following questionnaires: the Short Form-36, Cleveland Global Quality of Life scale, American Society of Colorectal Surgeons fecal incontinence severity index, and time trade-off method. Additionally, anal sphincter integrity (endosonography) and manometric pressures were measured by a medical physician blinded to the delivery technique. Anal sphincter physiology also was evaluated with electromyography and pudendal nerve function by nerve terminal motor latency technique.RESULTSOf 110 eligible females who had at least one live birth after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, 57 participated in the study by returning for clinical evaluation to the clinic and 25 others by returning the quality of life and functional outcome questionnaires. Patients were classified into two groups: patients who had only cesarean section delivery after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (n = 62) and patients who had at least one vaginal delivery after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (n = 20). The mean follow-up from the date of the most recent delivery was 4.9 years. The vaginal delivery group had significantly higher incidence of an anterior sphincter defect by anal endosonography (50 percent) vs. cesarean section delivery group (13 percent; P = 0.012). The mean squeeze anal pressure was significantly higher in the patients who had only cesarean section delivery (150 mmHg) after restorative proctocolectomy than patients who had at least one vaginal delivery (120 mmHg) after restorative proctocolectomy (P = 0.049). Quality of life evaluated by time trade-off method also was significantly better in the cesarean section delivery group (1) vs. vaginal delivery group (0.9; P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSThe risk of the sphincter injury and quality of life measured by time trade-off method are significantly worse after vaginal delivery compared with cesarean section in patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. In the short-term, this does not seem to substantially influence pouch function or quality of life; however, the long-term effects remain unknown, thus obstetric concern may not be the only factor dictating the type of delivery in this group of patients. A planned cesarean section may eliminate these potential and factual concerns in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis patients.

Male sexual function improves after ileal pouch anal anastomosis

Purpose  Restorative Proctocolectomy and Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis has become the gold standard surgical therapy for the majority of patients with mucosal ulcerative colitis. However sexual functional disturbances after this procedure can be a concern for patients. Therefore the aim of this study was to determine the outcome of sexual‐function related quality of life in male patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy.

Quality of life, functional outcome, and complications of coloplasty pouch after low anterior resection.

PURPOSEThe colonic J-pouch has been used to improve bowel function in patients undergoing low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis. However, a narrow pelvis, difficulties in reach, a long anal canal with prominent sphincters, or a fatty mesentery may turn this technique into a technically challenging procedure in certain patients. In these circumstances, “coloplasty” offers an alternative to a straight anastomosis. The purpose of this study was to compare the quality of life, functional outcome, and complications between patients undergoing coloplasty, colonic J-pouch, or straight anastomosis.METHODSAltogether, 162 patients who underwent coloanal or low colorectal anastomosis between 1998 and 2001 were studied. Data collected included demographics, length of follow-up, technique and type of anastomosis, complications, quality of life, and functional outcome. Results were analyzed according to use of a coloplasty (n = 69), colonic J-pouch (n = 43), or straight anastomosis (n = 50). The choice of the technique was based on the surgeon’s preference. Usually coloplasty or straight anastomosis was favored in male patients with a narrow pelvis or when a handsewn anastomosis was used.RESULTSQuality of life assessment with the short form-36 questionnaire revealed better scores in coloplasty and colonic J-pouch groups. The coloplasty (1.0 ± 1.7) and colonic J-pouch (1.0 ± 1.2) groups had fewer night bowel movements than the straight anastomosis group (1.5 ± 2.0) (P < 0.05). The coloplasty group also had fewer bowel movements per day than the straight anastomosis group (3.8 ± 2.9 vs. 4.8 ± 3.6; P < 0.05); also, less clustering and less antidiarrheal medication use were observed than in the straight anastomosis group. Colonic J-pouch patients with handsewn anastomosis had a higher anastomotic leak rate (44 percent) than the patients in the coloplasty with hand-sewn anastomosis group (3.6 percent).CONCLUSIONSColoplasty seems to be a safe, effective technique for improving the outcome of low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis. It is especially applicable when a colonic J-pouch anastomosis is technically difficult.

Complications of ileoanal pouches.

Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is the surgical therapy of choice for patients with chronic ulcerative colitis and the majority of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. It restores gastrointestinal continuity, re-establishes transanal defecation, and avoids a permanent stoma. Although this technically demanding procedure is associated with low mortality rates, it is frequently accompanied by early and late complications. This article will review these complications and discuss the interventions that are needed to provide appropriate treatment.

Laparoscopy-assisted Resection of Complicated Meckel's Diverticulum in Adults

The era of videoendoscopic surgery in emergency surgery practice has facilitated a wide range of endoscopic operative procedures. In our unit the diagnosis of acute abdomen is made after sequential clinical and laboratory examination, and diagnostic laparoscopy is advocated. Laparoscopy-assisted resection of complicated Meckels diverticulum in two adult patients was performed, and the results are discussed. Between December 1996 and June 2000, 98 patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy at the Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty Emergency Surgery Unit of Istanbul University because of signs and symptoms of acute abdomen. Among these, we have diagnosed one case of intestinal obstruction due to a volvulus around Meckels diverticulum and one of acute abdomen masquerading as acute appendicitis but actually involving omphalomesenteric duct cyst torsion. Both of these patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy and laparoscopy-assisted Meckels diverticulectomy. Diagnostic laparoscopies were performed on 46 male (47%) and 52 female (53%) patients. In all cases, laparoscopy successfully confirmed the diagnosis. Although in 27 patients the interventions were converted to open procedures, the operations were completed laparoscopically in 71 patients. Two of these patients underwent laparoscopy-assisted Meckels diverticulectomy and their postoperative periods were uneventful. Both patients were discharged from the hospital on their fourth postoperative day. Diagnostic laparoscopy is a safe and effective method for diagnosis of acute abdomen. In emergency surgery practices in developing countries, advanced laparoscopy should be performed to reduce expenses. Laparoscopy-assisted Meckels diverticulectomy is a safe and economic procedure and can be performed in adults for treatment of complicated cases without staplers.

Histologic and clinical outcome after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease and Barrett’s esophagus

BackgroundThe effectiveness of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for the regression of Barrett’s esophagus in gastroesophageal reflux disease remains controversial. The aim of this study, therefore, was to review endoscopic findings and clinical changes after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease, particularly for patients with Barrett’s esophagus.MethodsFrom September 1995 through June 2004, 127 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease underwent laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. All the patients had clinical and endoscopic follow-up evaluation. We further analyzed the course of 37 consecutive patients with Barrett’s esophagus (29% of all laparoscopic fundoplications performed in our institution) using endoscopic surveillance with appropriate biopsies and histologic evaluation. The median follow-up period for all the patients after fundoplication was 34 months (range, 3–108 months). The median follow-up period for the patients with Barrett’s esophagus was 19 months (range, 3–76 months).ResultsDuring the 9-year period, 70 women (55 %) and 57 (45%) men were treated with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. The median age of these patients was 42 years (range, 7–81 years). The clinical results were considered excellent for 67 patients (53%), good for 51 patients (40%), fair for 7 patients (6%), and poor for 2 patients (1%). Endoscopic surveillance showed regression of the macroscopic columnar segment in 23 patients with Barrett’s esophagus (62%). Regression at a histopathologic level occurred for 15 patients (40%). The histopathology remained unchanged for 14 patients with Barrett’s esophagus (38%).ConclusionLaparoscopic Nissen fundoplication effectively controls intestinal metaplasia and clinical symptoms in the majority of patients with Barrett’s esophagus.

Laparoscopic IPAA is not associated with decreased rates of incisional hernia and small-bowel obstruction when compared with open technique: Long-term follow-up of a case-matched study

BACKGROUND: There are scant data on the presumed reduction of small-bowel obstruction and incisional hernia rates associated with laparoscopic IPAA. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare long-term outcomes after open vs laparoscopic IPAA based on a previous study from our institution. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study (from January 1992 through December 2007). SETTINGS: The study was conducted in a high-volume, specialized colorectal surgery department. PATIENTS: Patients included those who were enrolled in a previous institutional case-matched (2:1) study that examined 238 open and 119 laparoscopic IPAAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Long-term complications, including incisional hernia clinically detected by physician, adhesive small-bowel obstruction requiring hospital admission and surgery, pouch excision, and pouchitis rates, were collected. Laparoscopic abdominal colectomy followed by rectal dissection under direct vision (lower midline or Pfannenstiel incision) and converted cases were analyzed within the laparoscopic group. RESULTS: Groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, BMI, and extent of resection (completion proctectomy vs proctocolectomy), consistent with the original case matching. Mean follow-up was significantly longer in the open group (9.6 vs 8.1 years; p = 0.008). Open and laparoscopic operations were associated with similar incidences of incisional hernia (8.4% vs 5.9%; p = 0.40), small-bowel obstruction requiring hospital admission (26.1% vs 29.4%; p = 0.50), and small-bowel obstruction requiring surgery (8.4% vs 11.8%; p = 0.31). A subgroup analysis comparing 50 patients with laparoscopic rectal dissection versus 69 patients with rectal dissection under direct vision confirmed statistically similar incidences of incisional hernia, hospital admission, and surgery for small-bowel obstruction. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Some of the anticipated long-term benefits of laparoscopic IPAA could not be demonstrated in this cohort. The lack of such long-term benefits should be discussed with patients when proposing a laparoscopic approach.

Impact of the Specific Extraction-Site Location on the Risk of Incisional Hernia After Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the specific incision used for specimen extraction during laparoscopic colorectal surgery on incisional hernia rates relative to other contributing factors remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the relationship between extraction-site location and incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study (January 2000 through December 2011). SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a high-volume, specialized colorectal surgery department. PATIENTS: All of the patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resection were identified from our prospectively maintained institutional database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Extraction-site and port-site incisional hernias clinically detected by physician or detected on CT scan were collected. Converted cases, defined as the use of a midline incision to perform the operation, were kept in the intent-to-treat analysis. Specific extraction-site groups were compared, and other relevant factors associated with incisional hernia rates were also evaluated with univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 2148 patients (54.0% with abdominal and 46.0% with pelvic operations) with a mean age of 51.7 ± 18.2 years (52% women) were reviewed. Used extraction sites were infraumbilical midline (23.7%), stoma site/right or left lower quadrant (15%), periumbilical midline (22.5%), and Pfannenstiel (29.6%) and midline converted (9.2%). Overall crude extraction site incisional hernia rate during a mean follow-up of 5.9 ± 3.0 years was 7.2% (n = 155). Extraction-site incisional hernia crude rates were highest after periumbilical midline (12.6%) and a midline incision used for conversion to open surgery (12.0%). Independent factors associated with extraction-site incisional hernia were any extraction sites compared with Pfannenstiel (periumbilical midline HR = 12.7; midline converted HR = 13.1; stoma site HR = 28.4; p < 0.001 for each), increased BMI (HR = 1.23; p = 0.002), synchronous port-site hernias (HR = 3.66; p < 0.001), and postoperative superficial surgical-site infection (HR = 2.11; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature, incisional hernia diagnoses based on clinical examination, and heterogeneous surgical population. CONCLUSIONS: Preferential extraction sites to minimize incisional hernia rates should be Pfannenstiel or incisions off the midline. Midline incisions should be avoided when possible.