Richard E. Lovegrove

A Comparison of Hand-Sewn Versus Stapled Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis (IPAA) Following Proctocolectomy: A Meta-Analysis of 4183 Patients

Objective:Using meta-analytical techniques, the study compared postoperative adverse events and functional outcomes of stapled versus hand-sewn ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) following restorative proctocolectomy. Background:The choice of mucosectomy and hand-sewn versus stapled pouch-anal anastomosis has been a subject of debate with no clear consensus as to which method provides better functional results and long-term outcomes. Methods:Comparative studies published between 1988 and 2003, of hand-sewn versus stapled IPAA were included. Endpoints were classified into postoperative complications and functional and physiologic outcomes measured at least 3 months following closure of ileostomy or surgery if no proximal diversion was used, quality of life following surgery, and neoplastic transformation within the anal transition zone. Results:Twenty-one studies, consisting of 4183 patients (2699 hand-sewn and 1484 stapled IPAA) were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the 2 groups. The incidence of nocturnal seepage and pad usage favored the stapled IPAA (odds ratio [OR] = 2.78, P < 0.001 and OR = 4.12, P = 0.007, respectively). The frequency of defecation was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.562), nor was the use of antidiarrheal medication (OR = 1.27, P = 0.422). Anorectal physiologic measurements demonstrated a significant reduction in the resting and squeeze pressure in the hand-sewn IPAA group by 13.4 and 14.4 mm Hg, respectively (P < 0.018). The stapled IPAA group showed a higher incidence of dysplasia in the anal transition zone that did not reach statistical significance (OR = 0.42, P = 0.080). Conclusions:Both techniques had similar early postoperative outcomes; however, stapled IPAA offered improved nocturnal continence, which was reflected in higher anorectal physiologic measurements. A risk of increased incidence of dysplasia in the ATZ may exist in the stapled group that cannot be quantified by this study. We describe a decision algorithm for the choice of IPAA, based on the relative risk of long-term neoplastic transformation.

Comparison of colonic stenting and open surgery for malignant large bowel obstruction

BackgroundColonic stents potentially offer effective palliation for those with bowel obstruction attributable to incurable malignancy, and a “bridge to surgery” for those in whom emergency surgery would necessitate a stoma. The current study compared the outcomes of stents and open surgery in the management of malignant large bowel obstruction.MethodsA literature search of the Medline, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed to identify comparative studies reporting outcomes on colonic stenting and surgery for large bowel obstruction. Random effects meta-analytical techniques were applied to identify differences in outcomes between the two groups. Sensitivity analysis of high quality studies, those reporting on more than 35 patients, those solely concerning colorectal cancer and studies performing intention to treat analysis was undertaken to evaluate the study heterogeneity.ResultsA total of 10 studies satisfied the criteria for inclusion, with outcomes reported for 451 patients. Stent insertion was attempted for 244 patients (54.1%), and proved successful for 226 (92.6%). The length of hospital stay was shorter by 7.72 days in the stent group (p < 0.001), which also had lower mortality (p = 0.03) and fewer medical complications (p < 0.001). Stoma formation at any point during management was significantly lower than in the stent group (odds ratio, 0.02; p < 0.001), and “bridging to surgery” did not adversely influence survival.ConclusionsColonic stenting offers effective palliation for malignant bowel obstruction, with short lengths of hospital stay and a low rate for stoma formation, but data on quality of life and economic evaluation are limited. There is no evidence of differences in long-term survival between those who have stents followed by subsequent resection and those undergoing emergency bowel resection.

Comparison of Outcomes After Restorative Proctocolectomy With or Without Defunctioning Ileostomy

OBJECTIVE To evaluate postoperative adverse events and functional outcomes of patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with or without proximal diversion. DATA SOURCES The literature was searched by means of MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane databases for all studies published from 1978 through July 15, 2005. STUDY SELECTION Comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies evaluating outcomes after restorative proctocolectomy with or without ileostomy were included. DATA EXTRACTION Three authors independently extracted data by using operative variables, early and late adverse events, and functional outcomes between the 2 groups. Trials were assessed by means of the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Score. Random-effects meta-analytical techniques were used for analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS The review included 17 studies comprising 1486 patients (765 without ileostomy and 721 with ileostomy). There were no significant differences in functional outcomes between the 2 groups. The development of pouch-related leak was significantly higher in the no-ileostomy group (odds ratio, 2.37; P = .002). Small-bowel obstruction was more common in the stoma group but was not statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.65). The development of anastomotic stricture favored the no-stoma group (odds ratio, 0.31; P = .045). On sensitivity analysis, pelvic sepsis was significantly less common in patients whose ileostomies were defunctioned; however, this finding was not mirrored by a significant difference in ileal pouch failure in this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS Restorative proctocolectomy without a diverting ileostomy resulted in functional outcomes similar to those of surgery with proximal diversion but was associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leak. Diverting ileostomy should be omitted in carefully selected patients only.

Comparison of outcomes following ileostomy versus colostomy for defunctioning colorectal anastomoses.

The present study evaluated outcomes of patients undergoing proximal diversion using either a loop ileostomy or loop colostomy following distal colorectal resection for malignant and non-malignant disease. A literature search of the Medline, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies published between 1966 and 2006, comparing loop ileostomy and loop colostomy to protect a distal colorectal anastomosis. A random effect meta-analytical technique was used and sensitivity analysis performed on studies published since 2000, higher quality papers, those reporting on 70 or more patients, and those reporting outcomes following colorectal cancer resections. Seven studies, including three randomised controlled trials, satisfied the inclusion criteria. Outcomes of a total of 1,204 patients were analysed, of whom 719 (59.7%) underwent defunctioning loop ileostomy. High stoma output was more common following ileostomy formation (OR = 5.39, 95% CI: 1.11, 26.12, P = 0.04), but wound infections following their reversal were significantly fewer (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.62, P = 0.004). Overall complications were less frequent for ileostomy patients in the subgroup of high quality studies (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.59, P = 0.003). The results of this meta-analysis suggest that ileostomy may be preferable to colostomy when used to defunction a distal colorectal anastomosis. Wound infections following stoma reversal were reduced, as were overall stoma-related complications and incisional hernia following stoma reversal for ileostomy patients in high quality studies.

Meta-analysis of short-term and long-term outcomes of J, W and S ileal reservoirs for restorative proctocolectomy

Objective  The choice of ileal pouch reservoir has been a contentious subject with no consensus as to which technique provides better function. This study aimed to compare short‐ and long‐term outcomes of three ileal reservoir designs.

Long-term failure and function after restorative proctocolectomy - a multi-centre study of patients from the UK National Ileal Pouch Registry.

Objective  There is little information on the long‐term failure and function after restorative proctocolectomy (RPC). The results of data submitted to a national registry were analysed.

A Comparison of Adverse Events and Functional Outcomes After Restorative Proctocolectomy for Familial Adenomatous Polyposis and Ulcerative Colitis

PurposeRestorative proctocolectomy is the procedure of choice for patients undergoing proctocolectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis or ulcerative colitis. This meta-analysis was designed to identify differences in adverse events and functional outcomes between these two groups.MethodsStudies published between 1986 and 2003 that compared outcomes between patients with familial adenomatous polyposis and ulcerative colitis were included. Meta-analytical techniques using random effect models were used to compare short-term and long-term adverse events as well as functional outcomes between the groups.ResultsNineteen studies comprising 5,199 patients (familial adenomatous polyposis, 782; ulcerative colitis, 4,417) were analyzed. There were no significant differences in immediate postoperative adverse events between the two groups. Pouch-related fistulation was significantly increased in the ulcerative colitis group (10.5 percent vs. familial adenomatous polyposis 4.8 percent; odds ratio 2.31; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in pouch failure between the two groups (ulcerative colitis 5.8 percent vs. familial adenomatous polyposis 4.5 percent; odds ratio 1.22; P = 0.43). The incidence of pouchitis was significantly greater in the ulcerative colitis group (30.1 vs. 5.5 percent; odds ratio 6.44; P < 0.001). Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis had a significant advantage in stool frequency with one less motion per 24 hours (95 percent confidence interval, 0.21–1.76; P = 0.01).ConclusionsIn contrast to studies reporting similar outcomes for patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis or ulcerative colitis, the present meta-analysis suggested that patients with ulcerative colitis are at greater risk of pouch-related fistulation and pouchitis. Although there was an increase in the 24-hour stool frequency in the ulcerative colitis group, this may be accounted for by the younger age at surgery in the familial adenomatous polyposis group.

The Effect of Crohn’s Disease on Outcomes After Restorative Proctocolectomy

PurposeThis study was designed to compare postoperative adverse events and functional outcomes after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis between patients with Crohn’s disease and those with non-Crohn’s disease diagnoses.MethodsA literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1980 and 2005 comparing outcomes of patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and indeterminate colitis. Random-effect, meta-analytical techniques were used and sensitivity analysis was performed.ResultsTen studies comprising 3,103 patients (Crohn’s disease=225; ulcerative colitis=2,711; indeterminate colitis=167) were included. Patients with Crohn’s disease developed more anastomotic strictures than non-Crohn’s disease diagnoses (odds ratio, 2.12; P=0.05) and experienced pouch failure more frequently than patients with ulcerative colitis (Crohn’s disease vs. ulcerative colitis: 32 vs. 4.8 percent, P<0.001; Crohn’s disease vs. indeterminate colitis: 38 vs. 5 percent, P<0.001). Urgency was more common in Crohn’s disease compared with non-Crohn’s disease: 19 vs. 11 percent (P=0.02). Incontinence occurred more frequently in Crohn’s disease compared with non-Crohn’s disease patients: 19 vs. 10 percent (odds ratio, 2.4; P=0.01). Twenty-four-hour stool frequency did not differ significantly between Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, or indeterminate colitis. Patients with isolated colonic Crohn’s disease were not significantly at increased risk of postoperative complications or pouch failure (P=0.06).ConclusionsPatients with Crohn’s disease undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis should be appropriately counseled toward poorer functional outcomes and higher failure compared with non-Crohn’s disease patients. It maybe possible to preoperatively select patients with isolated colonic Crohn’s disease who may benefit from ileal pouch-anal anastomosis with acceptable adverse outcomes.

To Divert or Not to Divert: A Retrospective Analysis of Variables That Influence Ileostomy Omission in Ileal Pouch Surgery

HYPOTHESIS A model could be developed to identify patients who can safely undergo restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) without proximal diversion. DESIGN Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent factors favoring omission of ileostomy at the time of RPC. A propensity nomogram was developed and validated using measures of calibration, discrimination, and subgroup analysis. SETTING Two tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS A total of 4013 patients undergoing RPC between January 1977 and December 2005 were included in the study sample. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE The decision to omit loop ileostomy at the time of RPC. RESULTS After study group exclusions, proximal diversion was performed in 3196 of 3733 patients (85.6%) undergoing RPC; 45.4% of 3733 patients were women. The mean (SD) age at surgery was 37.4 (12.8) years. Ulcerative colitis was the indication for RPC in 2304 patients (61.7%) and familial adenomatous polyposis in 364 patients (9.8%), and a J pouch was performed in 2657 patients (71.2%). The following were found to be associated with ileostomy omission: stapled anastomosis (odds ratio [OR], 6.4), no preoperative corticosteroid use (OR, 3.2), familial adenomatous polyposis diagnosis (OR, 2.6), cancer diagnosis (OR, 3.4), female sex (OR, 1.6), and age at surgery younger than 26 years (OR, 2.1) (P < .01 for all). The model discriminated well (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 74.9%), with no significant differences between observed and expected outcomes (P = .49). Omission of proximal diversion demonstrated no significant effect on postoperative adverse events, although it was associated with a 2-day increase in the median length of hospital stay (P < .01). CONCLUSION Incorporation of a 5-point nomogram in the preoperative assessment of patients undergoing RPC may aid clinicians in identifying a select group of patients who may be candidates for ileostomy omission during RPC.

The Impact of Technical Factors on Outcome of Restorative Proctocolectomy for Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

PurposeThis study was designed to assess the impact of technical factors on functional outcomes and complications in patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis.MethodsThis was a descriptive study on 189 patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy in a single tertiary referral center between 1977 and 2003. Primary outcomes were major complications, pouch function, and neoplastic transformation in the anal transitional zone.ResultsPouch construction was J-reservoir (60 percent), W-reservoir (34 percent), or S-reservoir (6 percent), with double-stapled (31 percent) or handsewn anastomosis with mucosectomy (69 percent). Overall pouch survival was 96 percent at five years and 89 percent at ten years, with no differences according to pouch design or anastomotic technique. The incidence of pelvic sepsis was unaffected by anastomotic technique (stapled vs. handsewn; 12 vs. 13 percent) or type of reservoir (J- vs. W- vs. S-pouch; 16 vs. 9 vs. 10 percent). Fistula formation was independent of anastomotic technique (stapled vs. handsewn; 8 vs. 8 percent) and type of reservoir (J- vs. W- vs. S-pouch; 9 vs. 7 vs. 0 percent). The night-time and 24-hour bowel frequencies were similar with the two anastomotic techniques and types of reservoirs. The incidence of polyps at the anal transitional zone was lower with handsewn than with stapled anastomosis (19 vs. 38 percent; P = 0.047).ConclusionsRestorative proctocolectomy in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis has good functional outcomes and an acceptable rate of complications, which are independent of choice of technique. Handsewn ileoanal anastomosis with mucosectomy seems to reduce the incidence of subsequent neoplasia in the anal transitional zone but does not eliminate the risk of cancer.