Creation of an institutional preoperative checklist to support clinical risk assessment in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) considering ileoanal pouch surgery.

Background: Total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the most established restorative operative approach for patients with ulcerative colitis. It has associated morbidity and the potential for major repercussions on quality of life. As such, patient selection is crucial to its success. The main aim of this paper is to present an institutional preoperative checklist to support clinical risk assessment and patient selection in those considering IPAA. Methods: A literature review was performed to identify the risk factors associated with surgical complications, decreased functional outcomes/quality of life, and pouch failure after IPAA. Based on this, a preliminary checklist was devised and modified through an iterative process. This was then evaluated by a consensus group comprising the pouch multidisciplinary team (MDT) core members. Results: The final preoperative checklist includes assessment for risk factors such as gender, advanced age, obesity, comorbidities, sphincteric impairment, Crohn's disease and pelvic radiation therapy. In addition, essential steps in the decision-making process, such as pouch nurse counselling and discussion regarding surgical alternatives, are also included. The last step of the checklist is discussion at a dedicated pouch-MDT. Discussion: A preoperative checklist may support clinicians with the selection of patients that are suitable for pouch surgery. It also serves as a useful tool to inform the discussion of cases at the MDT meeting.

MRI-enema for the assessment of pelvic intestinal anastomotic integrity.

AIM: Anastomotic leak causes significant morbidity for patients undergoing pelvic intestinal surgery. Fluoroscopic assessment of anastomotic integrity using water-soluble contrast enema (WSCE) is of questionable benefit over examination alone. We hypothesized that MRI-enema may be more accurate. The aim of this study was to compare MRI-enema with fluoroscopic WSCE. METHOD: Patients referred for WSCE with pelvic intestinal anastomosis and defunctioning ileostomy (including patients with suspected or known leaks) were invited to participate. WSCE and MRI-enema were undertaken within 48 h of each other. MRI sequences were performed before, during and immediately after the introduction of 400 ml of 1% gadolinium contrast solution per anus. MRI examinations were reported to protocol by two blinded gastrointestinal radiologists. A Likert-scale patient questionnaire was administered to compare patient experience. Follow-up was >12 months after ileostomy reversal. Anastomotic leak was determined by unblinded consensus of examination and radiological findings. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were recruited, with a median age of 39 years (range 22-69). Ten were men, 11 had ileoanal pouch formation and five had low anterior resection. Five patients had anastomotic leak identified by MRI and four by WSCE. The radial location of the anastomotic defect was identified in all five patients by MRI versus two on WSCE. MRI revealed additional information including contents of a widened presacral space. Patient experience was equivalent. Eleven patients eventually had ileostomy reversal without complications. CONCLUSION: MRI-enema is a feasible and tolerable alternative to WSCE and offers greater anatomical detail in the context of pelvic intestinal anastomotic leak. Larger prospective studies are required to define its potential role in the UK National Health Service.

The pouch behaving badly: management of morbidity after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.

AIM: Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), or a 'pouch', allows restoration of intestinal continuity after proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis. Most patients have a good long-term outcome after IPAA, but in a significant proportion the functional outcome and quality of life are unsatisfactory. We term this outcome 'the pouch behaving badly'. Managing this, especially one is when unfamiliar with the possible underlying pathologies, is a challenge for both patient and clinician. We aim to outline the clinical approach to the pouch behaving badly, highlighting key aspects of investigation and management. METHOD: This is a narrative review of the literature covering the investigation and management of postoperative complications and morbidity after IPAA. RESULTS: Management of the pouch behaving badly requires a careful clinical assessment. The patient may present with multiple symptoms and a clear picture of the symptomatology and past history should be constructed before thorough examination and specialist investigation. We divide the pathology that underlies this clinical scenario into surgical, inflammatory, mechanical, functional and dysplastic causes and outline the investigation and management of each one. CONCLUSION: The pouch behaving badly is a challenging problem for both patient and clinician. A detailed clinical assessment with careful specialist investigation is key to diagnosing the underlying pathology. We stress the importance of patient-centred care - the aim is to improve quality of life.