Pouch failures following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis.

AIM: Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is a procedure offered to patients with ulcerative colitis who opt for restoration of bowel continuity. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of pouch failure and ascertain the risk factors associated with failure. METHOD: The study included 1991 patients with ulcerative colitis who underwent ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in Denmark in the period 1980-2013. Pouch failure was defined as excision of the pouch or presence of an unreversed stoma within 1 year after its creation. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to explore the association between pouch failure and age, gender, synchronous colectomy, primary faecal diversion, annual hospital volume (very low, 1-5 cases per year; low, 6-10; intermediate 11-20; high > 20), calendar year, laparoscopy and primary sclerosing cholangitis. RESULTS: Over a median 11.4 years, 295 failures occurred, corresponding to 5-, 10- and 20-year cumulative risks of 9.1%, 12.1% and 18.2%, respectively. The risk of failure was higher for women [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.39, 95% CI 1.10-1.75]. Primary non-diversion (aHR 1.63, 95% CI 1.11-2.41) and a low hospital volume (aHR, very low volume vs high volume 2.30, 95% CI 1.26-4.20) were also associated with a higher risk of failure. The risk of failure was not associated with calendar year, primary sclerosing cholangitis, synchronous colectomy or laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of patients from Denmark (where pouch surgery is centralized) with ulcerative colitis and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, women had a higher risk of pouch failure. Of modifiable factors, low hospital volume and non-diversion were associated with a higher risk of pouch failure.

Primary and secondary restorative proctocolectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis: complications and long-term bowel function.

AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate intra-operative difficulties, complications and long-term bowel function in polyposis patients undergoing conversion of an ileorectal anastomosis to an ileoanal pouch, compared with patients with a primary ileoanal pouch operation. METHOD: A national register-based retrospective study was performed with clinical follow-up and a questionnaire on long-term bowel function. RESULTS: There were 84 patients in the study: 59 (70%) had a primary pouch operation and in 25 (30%) a secondary pouch procedure was attempted. This was abandoned, in one case, leaving 24 patients who had a successful secondary restorative proctocolectomy. The median (range) follow-up was 123 (0-359) months. There were no intra-operative difficulties in the 59 primary operations, but intra-operative difficulties were reported in nine of 25 secondary operations (P < 0.001). Complications within 1 month of surgery occurred in six of 59 primary operations and in none of 24 secondary operations (P < 0.001); and late surgical complications occurred in eight of 55 primary operations and in eight of 24 secondary operations (P = 0.13). The only difference in bowel function was a lower frequency of nocturnal defaecation after secondary pouch formation (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Reoperation with proctectomy after a previous ileorectal anastomosis and conversion to restorative proctocolectomy is feasible in polyposis patients, with morbidity and functional results similar to those seen after a primary pouch operation.