Log in

Long-Term Results of Salvage Surgery for Septic Complications After Restorative Proctocolectomy

Does Fecal Diversion Improve Outcome?

  • Original Contribution
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

PURPOSE: Septic complications related to the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis after restorative proctocolectomy have been reported in up to 16 percent of patients in major series. Management strategies are not well established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of salvage surgery and to assess the impact diversion had on the outcome. METHODS: Patients who developed ileal pouch-anal anastomosis–related septic complications after restorative proctocolectomy were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Surgical procedures and follow-up data were obtained at the time of hospital and office visits. Successful salvage was defined as the absence of clinical evidence of fistula, sinus, or abscess at least three months after salvage surgery or closure of ileostomy. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis–related sepsis were identified. All patients had sinus or fistulous tracts from pouch-anal anastomoses. Eighty-nine salvage procedures were performed among these 51 patients (range, 1–4 procedures per patient). Forty-eight transanal anastomotic revisions were performed in nondiverted patients. Thirty-seven transanal revisions and four abdominoperineal revisions were performed in diverted patients. At a median follow-up of 65.2 (range, 3 to 166) months after salvage surgery or closure of the diverting stoma, 21 patients (41 percent) had complete resolution of their septic problems. Bowel frequency and continence for these patients were similar to patients who had not had ileal pouch-anal anastomotic problems. Eleven (29.7 percent) of 37 transanal procedures with diversion succeeded, whereas 10 (20.8 percent) of 48 nondiverted procedures succeeded. This difference was not significant (11/37 vs. 10/48; P = 0.448). None of the four abdominoperineal revisions succeeded. Of 51 patients, 34 (66.7 percent) retained their pouches and 21 (41.2 percent) were successfully revised. Seventeen patients (33.3 percent) had pouch excision. Five (9.8 percent) had persistent fistulas and remained diverted, and 8 (15.7 percent) had persistent fistulas and were not diverted. Thus, pouch function was retained in 29 patients (56.9 percent). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that anastomotic failure after restorative proctocolectomy is associated with a high rate of pouch failure. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis–related fistula or sinus warrants an aggressive surgical approach in selected, highly motivated patients because acceptable functional results are possible. Multiple procedures may often be necessary to achieve complete healing. Successful repair can be achieved after one or more unsuccessful attempts. Repeat procedures can be performed safely without adversely affecting ultimate outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. AG Parks RJ Nicholls (1978) ArticleTitleProctocolectomy without ileostomy for ulcerative colitis BMJ 2 85–88

    Google Scholar 

  2. J Utsunomiya T Iwama M Imajo et al. (1980) ArticleTitleTotal colectomy, mucosal proctectomy, and ileoanal anastomosis Dis Colon Rectum 23 459–466

    Google Scholar 

  3. OA Ogunbiyi S Korsgen MR Keighley (1997) ArticleTitlePouch salvage Dis Colon Rectum 40 548–552

    Google Scholar 

  4. PB McIntyre JH Pemberton BG Wolff RW Beart RR Dozois (1994) ArticleTitleComparing functional results one year and ten years after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis Dis Colon Rectum 37 303–307

    Google Scholar 

  5. A Lepisto P Luukkonen HJ Jarvinen (2002) ArticleTitleCumulative failure rate of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and quality of life after failure Dis Colon Rectum 45 1289–1294

    Google Scholar 

  6. BT Gemlo WD Wong DA Rothenberger SM Goldberg (1992) ArticleTitleIleal pouch-anal anastomosis. Patterns of failure Arch Surg 127 784–787

    Google Scholar 

  7. VW Fazio Y Ziv JM Church et al. (1995) ArticleTitleIleal pouch-anal anastomoses complications and function in 1005 patients Ann Surg 222 120–127

    Google Scholar 

  8. MT Dayton (2000) ArticleTitleRedo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for malfunctioning pouches—acceptable alternative to permanent ileostomy? Am J Surg 180 561–564

    Google Scholar 

  9. MT Dayton KP Larsen (1997) ArticleTitleOutcome of pouch-related complications after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis Am J Surg 174 728–731

    Google Scholar 

  10. R Farouk RR Dozois JH Pemberton D Larson (1998) ArticleTitleIncidence and subsequent impact of pelvic abscess after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis Dis Colon Rectum 41 1239–1243

    Google Scholar 

  11. DJ Schoetz SuffixJr JA Coller MC Veidenheimer (1988) ArticleTitleCan the pouch be saved? Dis Colon Rectum 31 671–675

    Google Scholar 

  12. O Zmora JE Efron JJ Nogueras EG Weiss SD Wexner (2001) ArticleTitleReoperative abdominal and perineal surgery in ileoanal pouch patients Dis Colon Rectum 44 1310–1314

    Google Scholar 

  13. PM Sagar JH Pemberton (1997) ArticleTitleIleo-anal pouch function and dysfunction Dig Dis 15 172–188

    Google Scholar 

  14. P Belliveau J Trudel CA Vasilevsky B Stein PH Gordon (1999) ArticleTitleIleoanal anastomosis with reservoirs Can J Surg 42 345–352

    Google Scholar 

  15. EM Breen DJ Schoetz SuffixJr PW Marcello et al. (1998) ArticleTitleFunctional results after perineal complications of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis Dis Colon Rectum 41 691–695

    Google Scholar 

  16. PY Lee VW Fazio JM Church TL Hull KW Eu IC Lavery (1997) ArticleTitleVaginal fistula following restorative proctocolectomy Dis Colon Rectum 40 752–759

    Google Scholar 

  17. G Ozuner T Hull P Lee VW Fazio (1997) ArticleTitleWhat happens to a pelvic pouch when a fistula develops? Dis Colon Rectum 40 543–547

    Google Scholar 

  18. UA Heuschen U Hinz EH Allemeyer et al. (2002) ArticleTitleRisk factors for ileoanal J pouch-related septic complications in ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis Ann Surg 235 207–216

    Google Scholar 

  19. SR Gorfine IM Gelernt JJ Bauer MT Harris I Kreel (1995) ArticleTitleRestorative proctocolectomy without diverting ileostomy Dis Colon Rectum 38 188–194

    Google Scholar 

  20. UA Heuschen U Hinz EH Allemeyer M Lucas G Heuschen C Herfarth (2001) ArticleTitleOne- or two-stage procedure for restorative proctocolectomy Ann Surg 234 788–794

    Google Scholar 

  21. HJ Sugerman EL Sugerman JG Meador HH Newsome SuffixJr JM Kellum SuffixJr EJ DeMaria (2000) ArticleTitleIleal pouch anal anastomosis without ileal diversion Ann Surg 232 530–541

    Google Scholar 

  22. PJ Hainsworth DC Bartolo (1998) ArticleTitleSelective omission of loop ileostomy in restorative proctocolectomy Int J Colorectal Dis 13 119–123

    Google Scholar 

  23. S Korsgen MR Keighley (1997) ArticleTitleCauses of failure and life expectancy of the ileoanal pouch Int J Colorectal Dis 12 4–8

    Google Scholar 

  24. HM MacRae RS McLeod Z Cohen BI O’Connor EN Ton (1997) ArticleTitleRisk factors for pelvic pouch failure Dis Colon Rectum 40 257–262

    Google Scholar 

  25. RB Stein GR Lichtenstein (2000) ArticleTitleComplications after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis Semin Gastrointest Dis 11 2–9

    Google Scholar 

  26. UA Heuschen EH Allemeyer U Hinz M Lucas C Herfarth G Heuschen (2002) ArticleTitleOutcome after septic complications in J pouch procedures Br J Surg 89 194–200

    Google Scholar 

  27. VW Fazio JS Wu IC Lavery (1998) ArticleTitleRepeat ileal pouch-anal anastomosis to salvage septic complications of pelvic pouches Ann Surg 228 588–597

    Google Scholar 

  28. Z Cohen D Smith R McLeod (1998) ArticleTitleReconstructive surgery for pelvic pouches World J Surg 22 342–346

    Google Scholar 

  29. EW Fonkalsrud J Bustorff-Silva (1999) ArticleTitleReconstruction for chronic dysfunction of ileoanal pouches Ann Surg 229 197–204

    Google Scholar 

  30. SS Saltzberg C DiEdwardo TE Scott WW LaMorte AF Stucchi JM Becker (1999) ArticleTitleIleal pouch salvage following failed ileal pouch-anal anastomosis J Gastrointest Surg 3 633–641

    Google Scholar 

  31. CB Whitlow FG Opelka JB Gathright SuffixJr DE Beck (1997) ArticleTitleTreatment of colorectal and ileoanal anastomotic sinuses Dis Colon Rectum 40 760–763

    Google Scholar 

  32. G Poggioli F Marchetti S Selleri S Laureti L Stocchi G Gozzetti (1993) ArticleTitleRedo pouches Dis Colon Rectum 36 492–496

    Google Scholar 

  33. PM Sagar RR Dozois BG Wolff KA Kelly (1996) ArticleTitleDisconnection, pouch revision and reconnection of the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis Br J Surg 83 1401–1405

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Gorfine, S.R., Fichera, A., Harris, M.T. et al. Long-Term Results of Salvage Surgery for Septic Complications After Restorative Proctocolectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 46, 1339–1344 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-6747-2

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-6747-2

Keywords

Navigation