Comparable perioperative outcomes, long-term outcomes, and quality of life in a retrospective analysis of ulcerative colitis patients following 2-stage versus 3-stage proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.

PURPOSE: Many surgeons assume 3-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is safer than 2-stage IPAA in patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC), although recent data suggest outcomes are comparable. This study aimed to compare perioperative complications, late complications, and functional outcomes after 2- versus 3-stage IPAA in patients with active UC. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent 2- or 3-stage IPAA for active UC from 2000 to 2015 in a high-volume institution. Patients completed quality-of-life surveys 6 months following ileostomy reversal. Perioperative and late complications were recorded. Outcomes were compared with the Fisher exact test, and multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: We identified 212 patients who underwent 2- or 3-stage IPAA for active UC, of whom 157 patients (74.1%) underwent 2-stage procedures and 55 (25.9%) underwent 3-stage procedures. More patients undergoing 2-stage procedures were taking immunomodulators preoperatively (46.3% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.01), but there was no difference in use of steroids (p = 0.09) or biologic agents (p = 0.85). Three-stage procedures were more likely to be urgent (78.6% vs. 30.2%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in perioperative complications (p = 0.50), anastomotic leak (p = 0.94), pouchitis (p = 0.45), pouch failure (p = 0.46), perceived quality of life (p = 0.68), number of bowel movements per day (p = 0.27), or sexual satisfaction (p = 0.21) between the 2- and 3-stage groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing 2-stage compared to 3-stage IPAA for active ulcerative colitis have comparable outcomes and quality of life following ileostomy reversal. Two-stage IPAA appears to be safe and appropriate, even in high-risk patients.

Impact of Rising Grades of Internal Rectal Intussusception on Fecal Continence and Symptoms of Constipation.

BACKGROUND: A theory of rectal intussusception has been advanced that intrarectal intussusception, intra-anal intussusception, and external rectal prolapse are points on a continuum and are a cause of fecal incontinence and constipation. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the association among rectal intussusception, constipation, fecal incontinence, and anorectal manometry. DESIGN: Patients undergoing defecography were studied from a prospectively maintained database and classified according to the Oxford Rectal Prolapse Grade as normal or having intra-rectal, intra-anal, or external intussusception. Patient symptoms were assessed using the Constipation Severity Index and the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index. Quality-of-life surveys were also used. Patients also underwent anorectal manometry. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary care university medical center (Massachusetts General Hospital). PATIENTS: The study included 147 consecutive patients undergoing evaluation for evacuatory dysfunction and involved defecography, symptoms questionnaires, and anorectal physiology testing from January 2011 to December 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptom severity and quality-of-life scores were measured, as well as anal manometry results. RESULTS: Increasing Oxford grade was associated with an increase in severity of fecal incontinence (median score: normal = 23.9, intrarectal = 21.0, intra-anal = 30.0, external prolapse = 35.3; ß = 4.71; p = 0.009), which persisted in a multivariable model including age (ß = 2.13; p = 0.03), and decreased sphincter pressures (median mean resting pressure: normal = 75.4, intra-rectal = 69.7, intra-anal = 64.3, external prolapse = 48.3; ß = -8.57; p = 0.003), which did not persist in a multivariable model. Constipation severity did not increase with rising intussusception (mean score: normal = 37.4, intrarectal = 35.0, intra-anal = 41.4, external prolapse = 32.9; p = 0.79), and balloon expulsion improved rather than worsened (normal = 47.1%, intrarectal = 60.5%, intra-anal = 82.9%, external prolapse = 93.1%; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited because it was an observational study from a single center. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing grades of rectal intussusception are associated with increasing fecal incontinence but not constipation.