Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ross H, Steele SR, Varma M, Dykes S, Cima R, Buie WD, Rafferty J (2014) Practice parameters for the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum 57:5–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Targownik LE, Singh H, Nugent Z, Bernstein CN (2012) The epidemiology of colectomy in ulcerative colitis: results from a population-based cohort. Am J Gastroenterol 107:1228–1235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McGuire BB, Brannigan AE, O’Connell PR (2007) Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 94:812–823

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lightner AL, Mathis KL, Dozois EJ, Hahnsloser D, Loftus EV Jr, Raffals LE, Pemberton JH (2017) Results at up to 30 years after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 23:781–790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Murphy PB, Khot Z, Vogt KN, Ott M, Dubois L (2015) Quality of life after total proctocolectomy with ileostomy or IPAA: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 58:899–908

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Heuschen UA, Hinz U, Allemeyer EH, Autschbach F, Stern J, Lucas M, Herfarth C, Heuschen G (2002) Risk factors for ileoanal J pouch-related septic complications in ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. Ann Surg 235:207–216

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Shibata C, Funayama Y, Fukushima K et al (2006) Factors affecting the bowel function after proctocolectomy and ileal J pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. J Gastrointest Surg 10:1065–1071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hare NC, Arnott ID, Satsangi J (2008) Therapeutic options in acute severe ulcerative colitis. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2:357–370

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mor IJ, Vogel JD, da Luz MA, Shen B, Hammel J, Remzi FH (2008) Infliximab in ulcerative colitis is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications after restorative proctocolectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1202–1207 discussion 1207-1210

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Richardson D, deMontbrun S, Johnson PM (2011) Surgical management of ulcerative colitis: a comparison of Canadian and American colorectal surgeons. Can J Surg 54:257–262

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Hicks CW, Hodin RA, Bordeianou L (2013) Possible overuse of 3-stage procedures for active ulcerative colitis. JAMA Surg 148:658–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. St-Louis E, Iqbal S, Feldman LS, Sudarshan M, Deckelbaum DL, Razek TS, Khwaja K (2015) Using the age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index to predict outcomes in emergency general surgery. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 78:318–323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Livingston EH, Passaro EP Jr (1990) Postoperative ileus. Dig Dis Sci 35:121–132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lipman JM, Kiran RP, Shen B, Remzi F, Fazio VW (2011) Perioperative factors during ileal pouch-anal anastomosis predict pouchitis. Dis Colon Rectum 54:311–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, Kane RL, Mavrantonis C, Thorson AG, Wexner SD, Bliss D, Lowry AC (2000) Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 43:9–16 discussion 16-17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A (1997) The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 49:822–830

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosen R, Brown C, Heiman J et al (2000) The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Marital Ther 26:191–208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Zotti P, Del Bianco P, Serpentini S et al (2011) Validity and reliability of the MSKCC bowel function instrument in a sample of Italian rectal cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 37:589–596

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, Kane RL, Mavrantonis C, Thorson AG, Wexner SD, Bliss D, Lowry AC (1999) Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence: the fecal incontinence severity index. Dis Colon Rectum 42:1525–1532

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sandborn WJ, Tremaine WJ, Batts KP, Pemberton JH, Phillips SF (1994) Pouchitis after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a Pouchitis Disease Activity Index. Mayo Clin Proc 69:409–415

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hicks CW, Hodin RA, Savitt L, Bordeianou L (2014) Does intramesorectal excision for ulcerative colitis impact bowel and sexual function when compared with total mesorectal excision? Am J Surg 208(499–504):e494

    Google Scholar 

  22. Levack MM, Savitt LR, Berger DL, Shellito PC, Hodin RA, Rattner DW, Goldberg SM, Bordeianou L (2012) Sigmoidectomy syndrome? Patients’ perspectives on the functional outcomes following surgery for diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum 55:10–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Penna C, Daude F, Parc R, Tiret E, Frileux P, Hannoun L, Nordlinger B, Levy E (1993) Previous subtotal colectomy with ileostomy and sigmoidostomy improves the morbidity and early functional results after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum 36:343–348

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nicholls RJ, Holt SD, Lubowski DZ (1989) Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir. Comparison of two-stage vs. three-stage procedures and analysis of factors that might affect outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 32:323–326

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Galandiuk S, Pemberton JH, Tsao J, Ilstrup DM, Wolff BG (1991) Delayed ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Complications and functional results. Dis Colon Rectum 34:755–758

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lefevre JH, Bretagnol F, Ouaissi M, Taleb P, Alves A, Panis Y (2009) Total laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: prospective series of 82 patients. Surg Endosc 23:166–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mege D, Figueiredo MN, Manceau G, Maggiori L, Bouhnik Y, Panis Y (2016) Three-stage laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is the best approach for high-risk patients with inflammatory bowel disease: an analysis of 185 consecutive patients. J Crohns Colitis 10:898–904

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kennedy ED, Rothwell DM, Cohen Z, McLeod RS (2006) Increased experience and surgical technique lead to improved outcome after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a population-based study. Dis Colon Rectum 49:958–965

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lim M, Sagar P, Abdulgader A, Thekkinkattil D, Burke D (2007) The impact of preoperative immunomodulation on pouch-related septic complications after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 50:943–951

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bikhchandani J, Polites SF, Wagie AE, Habermann EB, Cima RR (2015) National trends of 3- versus 2-stage restorative proctocolectomy for chronic ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum 58:199–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Shannon A, Eng K, Kay M, Blanchard S, Wyllie R, Mahajan L, Worley S, Lavery I, Fazio V (2016) Long-term follow up of ileal pouch anal anastomosis in a large cohort of pediatric and young adult patients with ulcerative colitis. J Pediatr Surg 51:1181–1186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Germain A, Patel AS, Lindsay JO (2016) Systematic review: outcomes and post-operative complications following colectomy for ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 44:807–816

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. de Zeeuw S, Ahmed Ali U, Donders RA, Hueting WE, Keus F, van Laarhoven CJ (2012) Update of complications and functional outcome of the ileo-pouch anal anastomosis: overview of evidence and meta-analysis of 96 observational studies. Int J Color Dis 27:843–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hicks CW, Hodin RA, Bordeianou L (2014) Semi-urgent surgery in hospitalized patients with severe ulcerative colitis does not increase overall J-pouch complications. Am J Surg 207:281–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Meagher AP, Farouk R, Dozois RR, Kelly KA, Pemberton JH (1998) J ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis: complications and long-term outcome in 1310 patients. Br J Surg 85:800–803

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Fazio VW, Tekkis PP, Remzi F et al (2003) Quantification of risk for pouch failure after ileal pouch anal anastomosis surgery. Ann Surg 238:605–614 discussion 614-607

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Saraidaridis JT, Hashimoto DA, Chang DC, Bordeianou LG, Kunitake H (2018) Colorectal surgery fellowship improves in-hospital mortality after colectomy and proctectomy irrespective of hospital and surgeon volume. J Gastrointest Surg 22:516–522

  38. Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson SR, Tosteson AN, Sharp SM, Warshaw AL, Fisher ES (1999) Effect of hospital volume on in-hospital mortality with pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery 125:250–256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Porter GA, Soskolne CL, Yakimets WW, Newman SC (1998) Surgeon-related factors and outcome in rectal cancer. Ann Surg 227:157–167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Hannan EL, Radzyner M, Rubin D, Dougherty J, Brennan MF (2002) The influence of hospital and surgeon volume on in-hospital mortality for colectomy, gastrectomy, and lung lobectomy in patients with cancer. Surgery 131:6–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

GCL is currently receiving support from a National Institutes of Health T32 grant (Research Training in Alimentary Tract Surgery, DK007754-13).

Funding

GCL is currently receiving support from the National Institutes of Health T32 Research Training in Alimentary Tract Surgery grant DK007754-13.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, GRB-425, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Grace C. Lee, Sarah E. Deery, Hiroko Kunitake, Lieba R. Savitt, Rocco Ricciardi, Richard A. Hodin & Liliana G. Bordeianou

  2. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Caitlin W. Hicks

  3. Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA

    Adriana G. Olariu

  4. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan

Authors
  1. Grace C. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah E. Deery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroko Kunitake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caitlin W. Hicks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Adriana G. Olariu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lieba R. Savitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Rocco Ricciardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Richard A. Hodin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Liliana G. Bordeianou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grace C. Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For the data collection aspect of this study (Protocol #2008P002110), formal consent was waived by the IRB. For the survey portion of the study (Protocol #2011P001407), informed consent was implied by voluntary completion of the survey, as approved by the IRB.

Additional information

This manuscript was presented as an E-poster at the American Society for Colon and Rectal Surgery Annual Scientific Meeting, Seattle, WA, June 10–14, 2017.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, G.C., Deery, S.E., Kunitake, H. et al. 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. Int J Colorectal Dis 34, 491–499 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-018-03221-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-018-03221-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation