Leaks From the Tip of the J-pouch: Diagnosis, Management, and Long-term Pouch Survival.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis is restorative proctocolectomy with ileal J-pouch. Leaks from the tip of the J-pouch are a known complication, but there is a paucity of literature regarding this type of leak. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the diagnosis, management, and long-term clinical outcomes of leaks from the tip of the J-pouch at our institution. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study of a prospectively maintained pouch registry. SETTING: This study was conducted at a quaternary IBD referral center. PATIENTS: Patients included those with ileal J-pouches diagnosed with leaks from the tip of the J-pouch. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main measures of outcomes were pouch salvage rate, type of salvage procedures, and long-term Kaplan-Meier pouch survival. RESULTS: We identified 74 patients with leaks from the tip of the J-pouch. Pain (68.9%) and pelvic abscess (40.9%) were the most common presentations, whereas 10.8% of patients presented with an acute abdomen. The leak was diagnosed by imaging and/or endoscopy in 74.3% of patients but only discovered during surgical exploration in 25.6% of patients. Some 63.5% of patients were diagnosed only after loop ileostomy closure, whereas 32.4% of patients were diagnosed before ileostomy closure. The most common methods used for diagnosis were pouchoscopy (31.1%) and gastrograffin enema (28.4%). A definitive nonoperative approach was attempted in 48.6% of patients but was successful in only 10.8% of patients overall. Surgical repair was attempted in 89.2% of patients, whereas 4.5% of patients had pouch excision. Salvage operations (n = 63) included sutured or stapled repair of the tip of the J (65%), pouch excision with neo-pouch (25.4%), and pouch disconnection, repair, and reanastomosis (9.5%). Ultimately' 10 patients (13.5%) required pouch excision, yielding an overall 5-year pouch survival rate of 86.3%. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective review; referral bias may limit the generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Leaks from the tip of the J-pouch have variable clinical presentations and require a high index of suspicion. Pouch salvage surgery is required in the majority of patients and is associated with a high pouch salvage rate. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C50 . FUGAS DEL EXTREMO DE LA BOLSA EN J DIAGNSTICO, MANEJO Y SUPERVIVENCIA A LARGO PLAZO DE LA BOLSA: ANTECEDENTES:El estándar de atención para el tratamiento quirúrgico de la colitis ulcerosa es la proctocolectomía restauradora con bolsa ileal en J. Las fugas del extremo de la bolsa en J son una complicación conocida, pero hay escasez de literatura sobre este tipo de fuga.OBJETIVO:Describir el diagnóstico, manejo y resultados clínicos a largo plazo de las fugas del extremo de la bolsa en J en nuestra institución.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de registro de bolsa mantenido prospectivamente.ENTORNO CLINICO:Centro de referencia de enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal cuaternaria.PACIENTES:Pacientes con bolsas ileales en J diagnosticadas con fugas del extremo de la J.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Tasa de rescate de la bolsa, tipo de procedimientos de rescate y supervivencia a largo plazo de la bolsa Kaplan-Meier.RESULTADOS:Identificamos 74 pacientes con fugas del extremo de la bolsa en J. El dolor (68,9%) y el absceso pélvico (40,9%) fueron las presentaciones más comunes, mientras que el 10,8% de los pacientes presentaron abdomen agudo. La fuga se diagnosticó por imagen y/o endoscopia en el 74,3%, pero solo se descubrió durante la exploración quirúrgica en el 25,6%. El 63,5% fueron diagnosticados solo después del cierre de la ileostomía en asa, mientras que el 32,4% lo fueron antes del cierre de la ileostomía. Los métodos más comunes utilizados para el diagnóstico fueron la endoscopia (31,1%) y el enema de gastrografín (28,4%). Se intentó un abordaje no quirúrgico definitivo en el 48,6%, pero tuvo éxito en solo el 10,8% de los pacientes en general. Se intentó la reparación quirúrgica en el 89,2% de los pacientes, mientras que en el 4,5% se realizó la escisión del reservorio. Las operaciones de rescate (n = 63) incluyeron la reparación con sutura o grapas del extremo de la J (65%), la escisión del reservorio con neo-reservorio (25,4%) y la desconexión, reparación y reanastomosis del reservorio (9,5%). Finalmente, 10 (13,5%) pacientes requirieron la escisión de la bolsa, lo que se asocio con una alta tasa de supervivencia general de la bolsa a los 5 años del 86,3%.LIMITACIONES:Revisión retrospectiva; el sesgo de referencia puede limitar la generalización.CONCLUSIONES:Las fugas del extremo de la bolsa en J tienen presentaciones clínicas variables y requieren un alto índice de sospecha. La cirugía de rescate de la bolsa se requiere en la mayoría y se asocia con una alta tasa de rescate de la bolsa. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C50 . (Traducción- Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

Achieving a complete colonic evaluation in patients with incomplete colonoscopy is worth the effort.

BACKGROUND: Patients with an incomplete colonoscopy are potentially at risk for missed lesions. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to identify the percentage of patients completing colonic evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy, the manner in which the evaluation was completed, and the incidence of significant pathology. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in an outpatient colonoscopy clinic in the colorectal surgery department of a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients included those undergoing incomplete colonoscopy from a database of 25,645 colonoscopies performed from 1982 to 2009. INTERVENTIONS: Procedures aimed at completing colorectal evaluation were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reason for incompletion, secondary study, its success, and findings were measured. RESULTS: A total of 242 patients with incomplete colonoscopies were identified; 166 (69%) were women. The average age of patients was 59 years. Most frequent causes for incomplete colonoscopy were inadequate preparation (34%), pain (30%), and tortuosity (20%). The scope could not pass the splenic flexure in 165 patients (71%). A total of 218 patients (90%) were offered completion studies, and 179 patients (82%) complied. Seventy-three of 82 patients who had a surveillance colonoscopy had a follow-up (89%), compared with 72 (87%) of 83 with symptoms and 40 (74%) of 54 who had a screening. Barium enema (BE) was performed in 74 (41%), repeat colonoscopy in 71 (40%), CT colonography in 17 (9%), and colonoscopy under general anesthesia in 9 patients (5%). Resection with intraoperative/perioperative colonoscopy was required in 8 patients (4%). Repeat colonoscopy found 32 lesions (24 tubular adenomas, 4 tubulovillous adenomas, and 4 sessile serrated polyps) in 17 patients (24%). Radiology demonstrated new abnormalities in 11 (12%) of 91 patients, prompting 7 colonoscopies. In 3 patients, colonoscopy showed an inverted appendix, a tubulovillous adenoma, and a sigmoid stricture. Overall, clinically significant lesions were found in 19 patients (10%). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by an incomplete colonoscopy subjectively determined at the time of colonoscopy, as well as by a lack of comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: Complete colonic evaluation in patients with an incomplete colonoscopy is important. Repeat colonoscopy may be the most efficient way to achieve this.