Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology 6/2016

01-06-2016 | Original Article

Safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes in 588 patients undergoing minimally invasive ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a single-institution experience

Authors: S.-J. Baek, E. J. Dozois, K. L. Mathis, A. L. Lightner, S. Y. Boostrom, R. R. Cima, J. H. Pemberton, D. W. Larson

Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Issue 6/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

A laparoscopic approach to proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) in patients with chronic ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis has grown in popularity secondary to reports of small series demonstrating short-term patient benefits. Limited data exist in large numbers of patients undergoing laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (L-IPAA). We aimed to analyze surgical outcomes in a large cohort of patients undergoing L-IPAA.

Methods

From a prospectively maintained surgical database, 30-day surgical outcome data were reviewed for all L-IPAA performed for chronic ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis from 1999 to 2012. Demographics, operative approach, and operative and postoperative complications were analyzed.

Results

A total of 588 L-IPAA ileal pouch-anal anastomoses were performed predominantly for chronic ulcerative colitis (93.9 %). The mean age was 36.2 years, and 54.3 % were male, with a mean BMI of 24.1 kg/m2. Three-stage operations were performed in 17.7 %. The mean operating time of the patients excluding 3-stage operation was 269.4 min. Minimally invasive techniques included hand-assist in 55 % and straight laparoscopy in 45 %. Conversion to open occurred in 8.8 %. Median length of stay was 5 days. There was no mortality. Complications occurred in 36.9 % of patients: Clavien grade I (17.5 %), grade II (72.8 %), and grade III (9.7 %). Analysis of the grouped data over time demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in operative time (p < 0.001) and an increase in the ratio of hand-assisted over straight laparoscopy (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive IPAA performed using either a laparoscopic or hand-assisted technique is safe, can be performed with low conversion rates, and confers beneficial perioperative outcomes.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Larson DW, Pemberton JH (2004) Current concepts and controversies in surgery for IBD. Gastroenterology 126:1611–1619CrossRefPubMed Larson DW, Pemberton JH (2004) Current concepts and controversies in surgery for IBD. Gastroenterology 126:1611–1619CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Sugerman HJ et al (1991) Stapled ileoanal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial polyposis without a temporary diverting ileostomy. Ann Surg 213:606–617 (discussion 617-619) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sugerman HJ et al (1991) Stapled ileoanal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial polyposis without a temporary diverting ileostomy. Ann Surg 213:606–617 (discussion 617-619) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Marcello PW et al (2000) Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: case-matched comparative study with open restorative proctocolectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 43:604–608CrossRefPubMed Marcello PW et al (2000) Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: case-matched comparative study with open restorative proctocolectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 43:604–608CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Dunker MS et al (2001) Functional outcome, quality of life, body image, and cosmesis in patients after laparoscopic-assisted and conventional restorative proctocolectomy: a comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 44:1800–1807CrossRefPubMed Dunker MS et al (2001) Functional outcome, quality of life, body image, and cosmesis in patients after laparoscopic-assisted and conventional restorative proctocolectomy: a comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 44:1800–1807CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Gill TS et al (2004) Laparoscopic proctocolectomy with restorative ileal-anal pouch. Colorectal Dis 6:458–461CrossRefPubMed Gill TS et al (2004) Laparoscopic proctocolectomy with restorative ileal-anal pouch. Colorectal Dis 6:458–461CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Larson DW et al (2005) Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: functional outcome in a case-matched series. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1845–1850CrossRefPubMed Larson DW et al (2005) Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: functional outcome in a case-matched series. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1845–1850CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Larson DW et al (2006) Safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic ileal-pouch-anal anastomosis: a single institutional case-matched experience. Ann Surg 243:667–670 (discussion 670-672) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Larson DW et al (2006) Safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic ileal-pouch-anal anastomosis: a single institutional case-matched experience. Ann Surg 243:667–670 (discussion 670-672) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Larson DW et al (2008) Sexual function, body image, and quality of life after laparoscopic and open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 51:392–396CrossRefPubMed Larson DW et al (2008) Sexual function, body image, and quality of life after laparoscopic and open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 51:392–396CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Seshadri PA et al (2001) Does a laparoscopic approach to total abdominal colectomy and proctocolectomy offer advantages? Surg Endosc 15:837–842CrossRefPubMed Seshadri PA et al (2001) Does a laparoscopic approach to total abdominal colectomy and proctocolectomy offer advantages? Surg Endosc 15:837–842CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Meier AH et al (2007) Completely minimally invasive approach to restorative total proctocolectomy with j-pouch construction in children. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 17:418–421CrossRef Meier AH et al (2007) Completely minimally invasive approach to restorative total proctocolectomy with j-pouch construction in children. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 17:418–421CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Maartense S et al (2004) Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 240:984–991 (discussion 991-992) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Maartense S et al (2004) Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 240:984–991 (discussion 991-992) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Polle SW et al (2007) Body image, cosmesis, quality of life, and functional outcome of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy: long-term results of a randomized trial. Surg Endosc 21:1301–1307CrossRefPubMed Polle SW et al (2007) Body image, cosmesis, quality of life, and functional outcome of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy: long-term results of a randomized trial. Surg Endosc 21:1301–1307CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Hashimoto A et al (2001) Laparascope-assisted versus conventional restorative proctocolectomy with rectal mucosectomy. Surg Today 31:210–214CrossRefPubMed Hashimoto A et al (2001) Laparascope-assisted versus conventional restorative proctocolectomy with rectal mucosectomy. Surg Today 31:210–214CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Larson DW et al (2005) Total laparoscopic proctocolectomy with Brooke ileostomy: a novel incisionless surgical treatment for patients with ulcerative colitis. Surg Endosc 19:1284–1287CrossRefPubMed Larson DW et al (2005) Total laparoscopic proctocolectomy with Brooke ileostomy: a novel incisionless surgical treatment for patients with ulcerative colitis. Surg Endosc 19:1284–1287CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Goede AC, Reeves A, Dixon AR (2011) Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: a 10-year experience of an evolving technique. Colorectal Dis 13:1153–1157CrossRefPubMed Goede AC, Reeves A, Dixon AR (2011) Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: a 10-year experience of an evolving technique. Colorectal Dis 13:1153–1157CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Fichera A et al (2009) Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a comparative observational study on long-term functional results. J Gastrointest Surg 13:526–532CrossRefPubMed Fichera A et al (2009) Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a comparative observational study on long-term functional results. J Gastrointest Surg 13:526–532CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Lefevre JH et al (2009) Total laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: prospective series of 82 patients. Surg Endosc 23:166–173CrossRefPubMed Lefevre JH et al (2009) Total laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: prospective series of 82 patients. Surg Endosc 23:166–173CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference El-Gazzaz GS et al (2009) Outcomes for case-matched laparoscopically assisted versus open restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 96:522–526CrossRefPubMed El-Gazzaz GS et al (2009) Outcomes for case-matched laparoscopically assisted versus open restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 96:522–526CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Duff SE et al (2012) Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: safety and critical level of the ileal pouch anal anastomosis. Colorectal Dis 14:883–886CrossRefPubMed Duff SE et al (2012) Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: safety and critical level of the ileal pouch anal anastomosis. Colorectal Dis 14:883–886CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Hor T et al (2013) Feasibility of laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy without diverting stoma. Dig Liver Dis 44:118–122CrossRef Hor T et al (2013) Feasibility of laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy without diverting stoma. Dig Liver Dis 44:118–122CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Rickard MJ et al (2007) Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: the Australasian experience. Colorectal Dis 9:139–145CrossRefPubMed Rickard MJ et al (2007) Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: the Australasian experience. Colorectal Dis 9:139–145CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Hahnloser D et al (2007) Results at up to 20 years after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. Br J Surg 94:333–340CrossRefPubMed Hahnloser D et al (2007) Results at up to 20 years after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. Br J Surg 94:333–340CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Delaney CP et al (2003) Prospective, age-related analysis of surgical results, functional outcome, and quality of life after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Ann Surg 238:221–228PubMedPubMedCentral Delaney CP et al (2003) Prospective, age-related analysis of surgical results, functional outcome, and quality of life after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Ann Surg 238:221–228PubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference Lichtenstein GR et al (2006) Quality of life after proctocolectomy with ileoanal anastomosis for patients with ulcerative colitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 40:669–677CrossRefPubMed Lichtenstein GR et al (2006) Quality of life after proctocolectomy with ileoanal anastomosis for patients with ulcerative colitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 40:669–677CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Hueting WE et al (2005) Results and complications after ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of 43 observational studies comprising 9,317 patients. Dig Surg 22:69–79CrossRefPubMed Hueting WE et al (2005) Results and complications after ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of 43 observational studies comprising 9,317 patients. Dig Surg 22:69–79CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Pace DE et al (2002) Early experience with laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Techn 12:337–341CrossRef Pace DE et al (2002) Early experience with laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Techn 12:337–341CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Berdah SV et al (2009) Mid-term functional outcome of laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: a prospective study of 40 consecutive cases. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 19:485–488CrossRef Berdah SV et al (2009) Mid-term functional outcome of laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: a prospective study of 40 consecutive cases. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 19:485–488CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Farjado AD et al (2010) Laparoscopic versus open 2-stage ileal pouch: laparoscopic approach allows for faster restoration of intestinal continuity. J Am Coll Surg 211:377–383CrossRef Farjado AD et al (2010) Laparoscopic versus open 2-stage ileal pouch: laparoscopic approach allows for faster restoration of intestinal continuity. J Am Coll Surg 211:377–383CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes in 588 patients undergoing minimally invasive ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a single-institution experience
Authors
S.-J. Baek
E. J. Dozois
K. L. Mathis
A. L. Lightner
S. Y. Boostrom
R. R. Cima
J. H. Pemberton
D. W. Larson
Publication date
01-06-2016
Publisher
Springer Milan
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-016-1465-z

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

Techniques in Coloproctology 6/2016 Go to the issue