Parasitic Infections.

Parasitic infections of the gastrointestinal tract are a cause of morbidity to millions of individuals worldwide. These parasites are endemic in underdeveloped countries with poor sanitation allowing for spread through contaminated water supplies. While much is known about these parasites, the cutaneous manifestations caused by infection are infrequently reported in the literature. The deposition of the parasites into the perianal region often leads to significant skin irritation. Cutaneous findings vary from a mild pruritus ani to a macular rash to even severe perianal ulceration. This article discusses the perianal cutaneous findings caused by the parasitic illnesses, amebiasis, schistosomiasis, Enterobius vermicularis , strongyloidiasis, and cutaneous larva migrans, as well as their respective management.

Evaluation of one-stage laparoscopic-assisted restorative proctocolectomy at a specialty center: comparison with the open approach.

PURPOSE: This study compared outcomes after laparoscopically assisted and open restorative proctocolectomy performed as a one-stage procedure, including anorectal mucosectomy and omission of ileal diversion. METHODS: We reviewed our prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent restorative proctocolectomy between 1998 and 2006. Demographic data, surgical indications, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were evaluated. Anastomotic leaks were identified by radiologic, endoscopic, or intraoperative evidence. The primary outcome variables were complications, duration of operation, blood loss, intraoperative spillage of enteric contents, and the ability to complete the procedure in one stage. RESULTS: One-stage laparoscopically assisted restorative proctocolectomy was performed in 50 patients and open restorative proctocolectomy was performed in 155 patients. The mean operative time was longer for the laparoscopically assisted group (198.7 vs. 159.1 minutes; P = 0.006). The mean estimated blood loss was less among the patients in the laparoscopically assisted group (287.5 vs. 386.4 ml; P = 0.006). There were no significant differences in intraoperative or postoperative complications between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopically assisted one stage restorative proctocolectomy is a safe and technically feasible procedure. There seems to be no increase in the rate of postoperative complications compared with the open approach. Laparoscopically assisted restorative proctocolectomy should be considered in the surgical management of patients who require this procedure.

Septic complications after restorative proctocolectomy do not impair functional outcome: long-term follow-up from a specialty center.

PURPOSE: After restorative proctocolectomy, 7 to 8 percent of patients may have a pouch leak. Concern exists that pouch leak may be associated with impaired functional outcome. We evaluated patients who underwent restorative proctocolectomy to determine whether pouch leak adversely affected long-term functional outcome and quality of life. METHODS: We queried our prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent restorative proctocolectomy for demographic and clinical data. We sent a long-term outcome questionnaire to patients, including the validated Fecal Incontinence Severity Index and Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores. Pouch leak was identified by clinical or radiographic evidence of leak. Patients with leak were compared with those without to determine the impact on long-term functional outcome or quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 817 patients were available for follow-up and 374 patients (46 percent) completed questionnaires. The group with (n = 60; 16 percent) and without (n = 314; 84 percent) leak had similar demographics. The median Fecal Incontinence Severity Index score (15.3 vs. 14.7, P = 0.77), Cleveland Global Quality of Life score (0.79 vs. 0.81, P = 0.48), and bowel movements per 24 hours (7.92 vs. 7.88, P = 0.92) were similar. The pouch loss/permanent ileostomy rate was higher in those who leaked (13.3 vs. 0.9 percent, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Anastomotic leak after restorative proctocolectomy does not adversely affect long-term quality of life or functional outcome. However, pouch loss/permanent ileostomy is significantly more likely in patients who have had an anastomotic leak.

Delayed Kock pouch nipple valve failure: is revision indicated?

PURPOSE: This study was designed to review our experience with patients who, after more than 10 years of normal Kock pouch valve function, required repair of the valve. In addition, we describe the surgical techniques employed for valve repair. METHODS: A retrospective chart review identified 31 patients who underwent Kock pouch revision after a minimum time interval between previous pouch surgery and the current revision of 10 (average, 19.7) years. RESULTS: The intraoperative findings included slipped valve, valve prolapse, and internal nipple valve fistulas. The procedures performed included standard valve reconstruction, turnaround procedures, pedicle repair, wall stapling, and oversewing of fistula. Twelve of the 31 patients failed the initial revision and required additional operations, with an overall pouch salvage success rate of 93 percent. Only two patients required excision of the pouch and conversion to a Brooke ileostomy. The procedures were performed with minimal morbidity and no mortality. CONCLUSION: Surgical revision can be offered to patients with a continent ileostomy complicated by delayed valve dysfunction with low morbidity and good functional outcome.

Laparoscopic-assisted ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: This study reviews our experience with laparoscopic-assisted ileocolic resection in patients with Crohn's disease. The adequacy and safety of this procedure as measured by intraoperative and postoperative complications were evaluated. Special attention was paid to the group in which laparoscopy was not feasible and conversion to laparotomy was necessary. METHODS: Between 1992 and 2005, 168 laparoscopic-assisted ileocolic resections were performed on 167 patients with Crohn's ileal or ileocolic disease. Follow-up data were complete in 158 patients. RESULTS: In 38 patients (24%), conversion to laparotomy was necessary. Previous resection was not a predictor of conversion to laparotomy. Average ileal and colonic length of resected specimens was 20.9 cm and 6.5 cm, respectively, in the laparoscopic group, versus 24.9 cm and 10.6 cm in the converted group. Twenty of 120 specimens (16.6%) in the laparoscopic group were found to have margins microscopically positive for active Crohn's disease. None of the 38 specimens in the converted group had positive ileal margins. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic-assisted ileocolic resection can be safely performed in patients with Crohn's disease ileitis. The finding of positive surgical margins following laparoscopic resections compared with none among conventional resections has to be thoroughly evaluated.

Mucosal dysplasia in ileal pelvic pouches after restorative proctocolectomy.

PURPOSE: Inflammation, villous atrophy, colonic metaplasia, and dysplasia have been observed within the mucosa of ileal pelvic pouches after restorative proctocolectomy. This study was designed to determine the prevalence of mucosal dysplasia in ileal pouch and any associated risk factors. METHODS: Prospectively registered patients having restorative proctocolectomy were recruited. A cross-sectional study was performed using a questionnaire focusing on disease history, functional results, and pouchitis after surgery. Participants underwent screening endoscopic pouch examination using sigmoidoscopy. Mucosal biopsies were taken from six specific locations in the pouch from proximal ileal-pouch (inflow) to ileoanal anastomosis. All biopsies were performed under strict surveillance protocol regardless of patients' symptoms. Biopsies were interpreted by two pathologists unaware of each other's report. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients completed the protocol. Colectomy specimens from restorative proctocolectomy showed chronic ulcerative colitis in 118 (85.6 percent), familial adenomatous polyposis in 10 (7.2 percent), Crohn's colitis in 2 (1.4 percent), and indeterminate colitis in 8 (5.8 percent) patients. Twenty-two patients (18.3 percent) had dysplasia and eight (6.7 percent) had invasive cancer found in colectomy specimens after restorative proctocolectomy. Median interval between proctocolectomy and pouch biopsy was 5.4 years. Inflammatory changes were present in a majority of specimens, but these did not correlate with clinical history of pouchitis. No villous atrophy was identified. Pouch biopsies from only one patient were indefinite for dysplasia. Subsequent biopsies were negative. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and microscopic evidence of ileal-pouch inflammation is common. Ileal-pouch mucosal dysplasia is uncommon, occurring in only 1 of 138 patients. Villous atrophy and colonic metaplasia were not observed in this series. Routine pouch surveillance with biopsies may not be warranted.

Restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis complicated by colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is widely accepted as the procedure of choice for patients requiring surgery for chronic ulcerative colitis. The role of restorative proctocolectomy in the setting of chronic ulcerative colitis complicated by colorectal carcinoma is not clear. This study was undertaken to explore the clinical outcomes of chronic ulcerative colitis patients with coexisting colorectal carcinoma who underwent restorative proctocolectomy. METHODS: A total of 756 patients with chronic ulcerative colitis were followed prospectively after restorative proctocolectomy. Forty-five (5.9 percent) were found to have invasive carcinoma of the colon (n = 31) or rectum (n = 14). These patients were followed with special attention to cancer stage, adjuvant therapy, oncologic outcome, and functional results after restorative proctocolectomy. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (45.6 percent) had staged surgery (colon, 14; rectum, 7). Twenty-seven patients received adjuvant chemotherapy (colon, 22; rectum, 5). Fourteen patients (51.8 percent) who received chemotherapy were not diverted during this treatment. Two node-positive rectal cancer patients had pelvic radiotherapy: one before restorative proctocolectomy and one after restorative proctocolectomy. Mean time to restoration of intestinal continuity among staged patients did not differ between cancer and noncancer patients. Six patients died of metastatic disease (colon, 3; rectum, 3). Five deaths occurred among patients with Stage III disease (colon, 3/13, 23.1 percent; rectum, 2/3, 66.7 percent). One patient with Stage I cancer at the time of restorative proctocolectomy died. Thirty-nine patients are alive without evidence of disease at a mean interval from surgery of 76.5 months. Thirty-six patients have functioning pelvic pouches. Bowel frequency, continence, and complication rates are similar among restorative proctocolectomy patients with and without cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Restorative proctocolectomy as a single or staged procedure is a viable therapeutic option for selected chronic ulcerative colitis patients with associated colorectal cancers. Prognosis seems to be related to cancer stage. Adjuvant chemotherapy can safely be given to nondiverted patients. Appropriate use of preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer patients who are otherwise candidates for restorative proctocolectomy is unknown. Long-term functional results for cancer patients are similar to those seen in chronic ulcerative colitis patients without cancer.