Early versus delayed ileocolic resection for complicated Crohn's disease: is "cooling off" necessary?

BACKGROUND: Ileal Crohn's disease (CD) complicated by intraabdominal abscess, phlegmon, fistula, and/or microperforation is commonly treated with antibiotics, bowel rest, and percutaneous drainage followed by interval ileocolic resection (ICR). This "cool off" strategy is intended to facilitate the safe completion of a one-stage resection using a minimally invasive approach and minimize perioperative complications. There is limited data evaluating the benefits of delayed versus early resection. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) database at a tertiary center was queried from 2013-2020 to identify patients who underwent ICR for complicated ileal CD confirmed on preoperative imaging. ICR cohorts were classified as early (≤ 7 days) vs delayed (> 7 days) based on the interval from diagnostic imaging to surgery. Operative approach and 30-day postoperative morbidity were analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 474 patients who underwent ICR over the 7-year period, 112 patients had complicated ileal CD including 99 patients (88%) with intraabdominal abscess. Early ICR was performed in 52 patients (46%) at a median of 3 days (IQR 2, 5) from diagnostic imaging. Delayed ICR was performed in 60 patients (54%) following a median "cool off" period of 23 days of non-operative treatment (IQR 14, 44), including preoperative percutaneous abscess drainage in 17 patients (28%). A higher proportion of patients with intraabdominal abscess underwent delayed vs early ICR (57% vs 43%, p = 0.19). Overall, there were no significant differences in the rate of laparoscopy (96% vs 90%), conversion to open surgery (12% vs 17%), rates of extended bowel resection (8% vs 13%), additional concurrent procedures (44% vs 52%), or fecal diversion (10% vs 2%) in the early vs delayed ICR groups. The median postoperative length of stay was 5 days in both groups with an overall 25% vs 17% (p = 0.39) 30-day postoperative complication rate and a 6% vs 5% 30-day readmission rate in early vs delayed ICR groups, respectively. Overall median follow-up time was 14.3 months (IQR 1.2, 24.1) with no difference in the rate of subsequent CD-related intestinal resection (4% vs 5%) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary series, at a high-volume tertiary referral center, a "cool off" delayed resectional approach was not found to reduce perioperative complications in patients undergoing ICR for complicated ileal Crohn's disease. Laparoscopic ICR can be performed within one week of diagnosis with low rates of conversion and postoperative complications.

The role of laparoscopic surgery in repeat ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease.

AIM: Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach for primary uncomplicated ileocolic resection (ICR); however, its role for repeat resections is unclear. This study assessed the outcomes of primary and repeated ICRs for Crohn's disease to examine rates of laparoscopy and patient morbidity. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was conducted at a tertiary centre between 2013 and 2019. All patients undergoing ICRs for Crohn's disease were included. The cohort was divided into three groups based on number of resections-primary (1R), secondary (2R) and tertiary or more (>2R) groups. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: Over a 6-year period, 474 patients underwent ICR for Crohn's disease, including 369 primary (1R, 77.8%) and 105 repeat (≥2R, 22.2%) resections. A laparoscopic approach was less common in the ≥2R versus 1R groups (79.0% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.001), but rates of conversion to an open procedure were comparable. Morbidity was higher amongst repeat resections although this was not significant (20.0% vs. 14.1%, P = 0.18). Amongst cases approached laparoscopically (n = 429), rates of conversion and postoperative morbidity did not differ by stage of resection, although operative time was longer for repeat operations. Even in the group undergoing laparoscopy for tertiary or greater resections (>2R, n = 29), the rates of conversion (10%) and morbidity (14%) were relatively low. CONCLUSION: In this contemporary series of primary and reoperative ICR for ileal CD, a laparoscopic approach is feasible and safe for the majority of repeat ICRs when performed at a high volume centre.