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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AG Parks RJ Nicholls (1978) ArticleTitleProctocolectomy without ileostomy for ulcerative colitis BMJ 2 85–88
J Utsunomiya T Iwama M Imajo et al. (1980) ArticleTitleTotal colectomy, mucosal proctectomy, and ileoanal anastomosis Dis Colon Rectum 23 459–466
OA Ogunbiyi S Korsgen MR Keighley (1997) ArticleTitlePouch salvage Dis Colon Rectum 40 548–552
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
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
BT Gemlo WD Wong DA Rothenberger SM Goldberg (1992) ArticleTitleIleal pouch-anal anastomosis. Patterns of failure Arch Surg 127 784–787
VW Fazio Y Ziv JM Church et al. (1995) ArticleTitleIleal pouch-anal anastomoses complications and function in 1005 patients Ann Surg 222 120–127
MT Dayton (2000) ArticleTitleRedo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for malfunctioning pouches—acceptable alternative to permanent ileostomy? Am J Surg 180 561–564
MT Dayton KP Larsen (1997) ArticleTitleOutcome of pouch-related complications after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis Am J Surg 174 728–731
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
DJ Schoetz SuffixJr JA Coller MC Veidenheimer (1988) ArticleTitleCan the pouch be saved? Dis Colon Rectum 31 671–675
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
PM Sagar JH Pemberton (1997) ArticleTitleIleo-anal pouch function and dysfunction Dig Dis 15 172–188
P Belliveau J Trudel CA Vasilevsky B Stein PH Gordon (1999) ArticleTitleIleoanal anastomosis with reservoirs Can J Surg 42 345–352
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
PY Lee VW Fazio JM Church TL Hull KW Eu IC Lavery (1997) ArticleTitleVaginal fistula following restorative proctocolectomy Dis Colon Rectum 40 752–759
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
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
SR Gorfine IM Gelernt JJ Bauer MT Harris I Kreel (1995) ArticleTitleRestorative proctocolectomy without diverting ileostomy Dis Colon Rectum 38 188–194
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
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
PJ Hainsworth DC Bartolo (1998) ArticleTitleSelective omission of loop ileostomy in restorative proctocolectomy Int J Colorectal Dis 13 119–123
S Korsgen MR Keighley (1997) ArticleTitleCauses of failure and life expectancy of the ileoanal pouch Int J Colorectal Dis 12 4–8
HM MacRae RS McLeod Z Cohen BI O’Connor EN Ton (1997) ArticleTitleRisk factors for pelvic pouch failure Dis Colon Rectum 40 257–262
RB Stein GR Lichtenstein (2000) ArticleTitleComplications after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis Semin Gastrointest Dis 11 2–9
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
VW Fazio JS Wu IC Lavery (1998) ArticleTitleRepeat ileal pouch-anal anastomosis to salvage septic complications of pelvic pouches Ann Surg 228 588–597
Z Cohen D Smith R McLeod (1998) ArticleTitleReconstructive surgery for pelvic pouches World J Surg 22 342–346
EW Fonkalsrud J Bustorff-Silva (1999) ArticleTitleReconstruction for chronic dysfunction of ileoanal pouches Ann Surg 229 197–204
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
CB Whitlow FG Opelka JB Gathright SuffixJr DE Beck (1997) ArticleTitleTreatment of colorectal and ileoanal anastomotic sinuses Dis Colon Rectum 40 760–763
G Poggioli F Marchetti S Selleri S Laureti L Stocchi G Gozzetti (1993) ArticleTitleRedo pouches Dis Colon Rectum 36 492–496
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-6747-2