Pouch abandonment is extremely rare even in the reoperative setting: A high-volume referral center experience.

BACKGROUND: Ileal pouch anal anastomosis is the preferred method for restoration of intestinal continuity after proctocolectomy. Successful ileal pouch anal anastomosis requires adequate reach of the ileal mesentery to the pelvis. Reach issues are a common cause for intraoperative pouch abandonment; however, data regarding contemporary abandonment rates are rare and nonexistent in the revisional setting. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive ileal pouch anal anastomosis surgery at a single referral center. Both initial or "primary" pouches and revisional pouch surgery were included. RESULTS: In total, 447 attempts at pouch anal anastomosis were made, with an 1.6% overall rate of intraoperative abandonment. Pouch abandonment was attributed to inadequate mesenteric reach during 3 surgeries, desmoid tumors in 2 surgeries, and insufficient remaining small bowel in 2 surgeries. Twelve patients required lengthening maneuvers including 6 S pouches (1%) and 6 H pouches (1%). One half (49%) of operations were revisional ileal pouch anal anastomosis surgery. Overall, reach issues led to intraoperative abandonment in only 0.4% of attempted primary pouches and 1.0% of revisional surgeries. A preoperative diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis was associated with pouch abandonment (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Extremely low pouch abandonment rates as a result of mesenteric reach can be achieved even in the revisional setting at a high-volume center with institutional expertise. In the revisional setting, intra-abdominal desmoids or the potential for short gut affects pouch abandonment rates as much as reach issues.

Stapled End-To-Side Ileocolic Anastomosis in Crohn's Disease: Old Dog, Reliable Tricks? A Retrospective Two-Center Cohort Study.

Objective: Analyze our long-term experience with a less-popularized but stalwart approach, the stapled end-to-side ileocolic anastomosis. Background: The choice of technical approach to ileocolic anastomosis after ileocecal resection for Crohn's disease affects surgical outcomes and recurrence. Yet, despite heterogeneous data from different anastomotic configurations, there remains no clear guidance as to the optimal technique. Methods: In a retrospective cohort design, patients undergoing ileocolic anastomosis in the setting of Crohn's disease between 2016 and 2021 at two institutions were identified. Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes in terms of recurrence (surgical, clinical, and endoscopic) were studied. Results: In total, 211 patients were included. Before surgery, 80% were exposed to at least 1 cycle of systemic steroids and 71% had at least 1 biologic agent; 60% exhibited penetrating disease and 38% developed an intra-abdominal abscess. After surgery, one anastomosis leaked (0.5%). Over 2.4 years of follow-up (IQR = 1.3-3.9), surgical recurrence was 0.9%. Two-year overall recurrence-free and endoscopic recurrence-free survivals were 74% and 85% (95% CI = 68-81 and 80-91), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio of endoscopic recurrence was 3.0 (95% CI = 1.4-6.2) for males and 5.2 (1.2-22) for patients who received systemic steroids before the surgery. Conclusion: The stapled end-to-side anastomosis is an efficient, reliable, and reproducible approach to maintain bowel continuity after ileocecal resection with durable outcomes. Our outcomes demonstrate low rates of disease recurrence and stand favorably in comparison to other more technically complex or protracted anastomotic approaches. This anastomosis is an ideal reconstructive approach after ileocecal resection for Crohn's disease.

Current Status and Surgical Technique for Restorative Proctocolectomy with Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis

Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (RP/IPAA) is the procedure of choice for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), some patients with colonic Crohn's disease (CD), and those with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP); albeit, owing to its complexity, it should be performed by experienced professionals. RP/IPAA is the recommended surgical treatment for UC when the standard medical therapy is ineffective. This procedure has been demonstrated to provide patients with a good quality of life, such as in FAP patients with extensive disease in the rectum. The CD has been associated with higher rates of perianal involvement and disease recurrence, but some patients with CD limited to the large intestine and minimal perianal or ileal disease may also be considered for this operation. First, all patients undergo a detailed preoperative evaluation that includes a review of previous imaging, pathology, and colonoscopy findings, a perianal examination, an evaluation of the anorectal functions, mechanical bowel preparation, and prophylaxis against deep venous thrombosis and infectious complications. A staged approach is the most commonly preferred technique for RP/IPAA, which can be performed in 2 or 3 stages. The IPAA can be performed by laparoscopic, robotic, or open approach. The type of approach is determined based on the patient's condition, medication used, elective or emergency setting, and the surgeon's expertise level. A successful IPAA requires tension-free pouch anastomosis. The most common IPAA pouch types are the J or S pouches; alternatively, an H pouch may be created, which is mainly used in redo pouches. In experienced centers, > 95% of the patients become stoma-free in 10 years. IPAA is a complex procedure, and the complications after pouch surgery are pouchitis, pelvic sepsis, pouch failure, or anastomotic stricture. The majority of long-term complications can be prevented in such cases with a comprehensive preoperative evaluation and through the use of appropriate surgical techniques and postoperative care conducted at experienced centers. The techniques for performing RP/IPAA with their long-term outcomes have been reviewed in this article.

Structured versus non-structured reporting of pelvic MRI for ileal pouch evaluation: clarity and effectiveness.

PURPOSE: Given that ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery is a technically challenging and high-morbidity procedure, there are numerous pertinent imaging findings that need to be clearly and efficiently communicated to the IBD surgeons for essential patient management and surgical planning. Structured reporting has been increasingly used over the past decade throughout various radiology subspecialties to improve reporting clarity and completeness. We compare structured versus non-structured reporting of pelvic MRI for ileal pouch to evaluate for clarity and effectiveness. METHODS: 164 consecutive pelvic MRI's for ileal pouch evaluation, excluding subsequent exams for the same patient, acquired between 1/1/2019 and 7/31/2021 at one institution were included, before and after implementation (11/15/2020) of a structured reporting template, which was created with institutional IBD surgeons. Reports were assessed for the presence of 18 key features required for complete ileal pouch assessment: anastomosis (IPAA, tip of J, pouch body), cuff (length, cuffitis), pouch body (size, pouchitis, stricture), pouch inlet/pre-pouch ileum (stricture, inflammation, sharp angulation), pouch outlet (stricture), peripouch mesentery (position, mesentery twist), pelvic abscess, peri-anal fistula, pelvic lymph nodes, and skeletal abnormalities. Subgroup analysis was performed based on reader experience and divided into three categories: experienced (n = 2), other intra-institutional (n = 20), or affiliate site (n = 6). RESULTS: 57 (35%) structured and 107 (65%) non-structured pelvic MRI reports were reviewed. Structured reports contained 16.6 [SD:4.0] key features whereas non-structured reports contained 6.3 [SD:2.5] key features (p < .001). The largest improvement following template implementation was for reporting sharp angulation of the pouch inlet (91.2% vs. 0.9%, p < .001), tip of J suture line and pouch body anastomosis (both improved to 91.2% from 3.7%). Structured versus non-structured reports contained mean 17.7 versus 9.1 key features for experienced readers, 17.0 versus 5.9 for other intra-institutional readers, and 8.7 versus 5.3 for affiliate site readers. CONCLUSION: Structured reporting of pelvic MRI guides a systematic search pattern and comprehensive evaluation of ileal pouches, and therefore facilitates surgical planning and clinical management. This standardized reporting template can serve as baseline at other institutions for adaptation based on specific radiology and surgery preferences, fostering a collaborative environment between radiology and surgery, and ultimately improving patient care.

Could meeting the standards of the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer in the National Cancer Database improve patient outcomes?

AIM: The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) was developed to improve rectal cancer patient outcomes in the United States. The NAPRC consists of a set of process and outcome measures that hospitals must meet in order to be accredited. We aimed to assess the potential of the NAPRC by determining whether achievement of the process measures correlates with improved survival. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients undergoing curative proctectomy for non-metastatic rectal cancer from 2010 to 2014. NAPRC process measures identified in the National Cancer Database included clinical staging completion, treatment starting <60 days from diagnosis, carcinoembryonic antigen level measured prior to treatment, tumour regression grading and margin assessment. RESULTS: There were 48 669 patients identified with a mean age of 62 ± 12.9 years and 61.3% of patients were men. The process measure completed most often was assessment of proximal and distal margins (98.4%) and the measure completed least often was the serum carcinoembryonic antigen level prior to treatment (63.8%). All six process measures were completed in 23.6% of patients. After controlling for age, gender, comorbidities, annual facility resection volume, race and pathological stage, completion of all process measures was associated with a statistically significant mortality decrease (Cox hazard ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.94, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Participating institutions provided complete datasets for all six process measures in less than a quarter of patients. Compliance with all process measures was associated with a significant mortality reduction. Improved adoption of NAPRC process measures could therefore result in improved survival rates for rectal cancer in the United States.

Preoperative cross-sectional imaging findings in patients with surgically complex ileocolic Crohn's disease.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of preoperative cross-sectional imaging findings using the SAR-AGA definitions in Crohn's disease (CD) patients who underwent ileocolic resection (ICR) with and without surgically complex ileocolic CD (CIC-CD). METHODS: 69 CD patients [38 men; mean (± SD) age: 40.6 (16.2) years] who underwent ICR were retrospectively classified by surgical complexity by a colorectal surgeon using operative findings. CIC-CD was defined as ileal CD, not confined to the distal ileum. Two radiologists retrospectively evaluated the preoperative imaging for the presence and type of penetrating disease, stricture, or probable stricture using the SAR-AGA consensus definitions. The diagnostic performance of preoperative imaging findings was compared for patients with and without CIC-CD. Estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time (OT), conversion to open surgery, diversion, and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared. RESULTS: 60.9% had CIC-CD and 79.7% underwent primary ICR. Penetrating disease was more common in patients with than without CIC-CD (76.2% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.0048) and similar among primary versus redo ICR (p = 0.12). Patients with CIC-CD had more complex fistulas (59.5% vs. 11.1%; p < 0.0001) and fewer simple fistulas (2.4% vs. 18.5%; p = 0.03) than those without. Mesenteric findings (abscess, inflammatory mass) were more frequent in patients with (35.7%) than without (0%) (p = 0.0002) CIC-CD. Stricture and probable stricture were similar (p = 0.59). CIC-CD patients had greater EBL (178 cc vs. 57 cc, p = 0.006), conversion rates (30% vs. 0%, p = 0.0026), and diversion (80% vs. 52%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Complex fistula, mesenteric abscess, or inflammatory mass defined by the SAR-AGA guidelines suggests CIC-CD. ICR for CIC-CD had greater EBL, conversion to open surgery, and diversion.

Operative, long-term and quality of life outcomes after salvage of failed re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis.

AIM: Approximately 20%-40% of the patients with re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) experience pouch failure. Salvage surgery can be attempted in this patient group with severe aversion to permanent ileostomy. The literature regarding secondary IPAA revision after re-do IPAA failure is scarce. METHODS: All patients who underwent a secondary IPAA revision after re-do IPAA failure between September 2016 and July 2021 in a single centre were included. Short- and long-term outcomes and quality of life in this patient group are reported. RESULTS: Ten patients who had secondary IPAA revision for re-do IPAA failure were included. All patients had ulcerative colitis. Nine of these patients had pelvic sepsis and one patient had a mechanical issue. Mucosectomy and handsewn anastomosis was performed in nine patients. The existing pouch was salvaged in six patients and four patients had pouch excision and re-creation. Two patients had postoperative pelvic sepsis. Pouch retention rate was 78% in a median of 28 months. None of the patients had short-gut syndrome. The procedure was associated with good quality of life (median Cleveland Global Quality of Life Index 0.8). All patients would undergo the same surgery if needed. CONCLUSION: Secondary IPAA revision after a failed re-do IPAA can be an option in patients with severe aversion to permanent ileostomy if re-do IPAA fails and it is associated with good outcomes. This patient group should be carefully evaluated and referred to specialized centres if required.

Indications, functional and quality of life outcomes of new pouch creation during re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis: A comparative study with existing pouch salvage.

BACKGROUND: Salvage of the existing ileal pouch is favored during re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis if the pouch is not damaged after pelvic dissection and there are no other mechanical reasons that may necessitate construction of a new pouch. Excision of the existing pouch may be associated with some concerns for short-bowel syndrome and poor functional outcomes. This study aimed to report indications and compare functional and quality of life outcomes of new pouch creation versus salvage of the existing pouch during re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis. METHODS: Patients who underwent re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis between September 2016 and June 2020 were included. The reasons for pouch excision and new pouch creation were reported. Perioperative, functional outcomes and quality of life were compared between patients who had creation of a new pouch versus salvage of existing pouch. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients with re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis (new pouch, n = 63) were included. Most common indications for a new pouch creation were chronic pelvic infection that compromised the integrity and viability of the existing pouch (n = 32) and small pouch (n = 21). No patient developed short-bowel syndrome. The number of bowel movements, daily restrictions and Cleveland Global Quality of Life score scores were similar between 2 groups. Day-time seepage, day-time and night-time pad usage were more common after new pouch creation. Two-year pouch survival rates were comparable (new pouch: 92% versus existing pouch: 85%, P = .31). CONCLUSION: New pouch creation can be safely performed at the time of re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis. It provides acceptable functional and quality of life outcomes if existing pouch salvage is not feasible.

Ileal Pouch Excision can Be Performed With Similar Outcomes in Obese Patients Compared to Nonobese Counterparts: An Assessment From American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND: Failed pouches may tend to be managed with only a loop ileostomy in obese patients due to some safety concerns. The effect of obesity on ileal pouch excision outcomes is poorly studied. In our study, we aimed to assess the short-term outcomes after ileal pouch excision in obese patients compared to their nonobese counterparts. METHODS: The patients who underwent pouch excision between 2005 and 2017 were included using ACS-NSQIP participant user files. The operative outcomes were compared between obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and nonobese (BMI<30 kg/m2) groups. RESULTS: There were 507 pouch excision patients included of which eighty (15.7%) of them were obese. Physical status of the obese patients tended to be worse (ASA>3, 56.3 vs 42.9%, P = .027). There were more patients who had diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension (HT) in the obese group (26.3% vs. 11.2%, P = .015; 11.3 vs. 4.4%, P < .001, respectively). Operative time was similar between 2 groups (mean ± SD, 275 ± 111 vs. 252±111 minutes, P = .084). Deep incisional SSI was more commonly observed in the obese group (7.5 vs 2.8%, P = .038). In multivariate analysis, only deep incisional SSI was found to be independently associated with obesity (OR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.02-7.67). Obese patients were readmitted more frequently than nonobese counterparts (28.3 vs 16%, P = .035). The length of hospital stay was comparable [median (IQR), 7 (4-13.5) vs. 7 (5-11) days, P = .942]. CONCLUSION: Ileal pouch excision can be performed in obese patients with largely similar outcomes compared to their nonobese counterparts although obesity is associated with a higher rate of deep space infection.

Long-Term Outcomes After Colorectal Surgery in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis-Associated Colorectal Cancer Versus Sporadic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis is associated with a higher risk for developing colorectal cancer. It is unknown whether this translates into a worse prognosis when malignancy occurs. The goal of this study was to compare long-term outcomes between patients with ulcerative colitis-associated colorectal cancer and sporadic colorectal cancer. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery with curative intent for colorectal cancer in Denmark between January 2004 and June 2016 were included in the study. Patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were identified and matched 1:5 with patients with sporadic colorectal cancer using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was disease-free survival, with recurrence-free survival and all-cause mortality as secondary outcomes. In order to relate the results of the study to the existing literature, a systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 1332 patients, 222 with ulcerative colitis and 1110 with sporadic colorectal cancer were included in the study. Disease-free survival was similar between the two groups with a hazards ratio (HR) 1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.32], as was recurrence-free survival HR 1.14 (95% CI 0.86-1.53) and all-cause mortality HR 1.15 (95% CI 0.89-1.48). The results of the systematic review identified seven other relevant studies. Meta-analysis showed a HR 1.67 (95% CI 0.61-4.56) for recurrence-free survival and HR 1.21 (95% CI 0.93-1.56) for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in long-term outcomes between ulcerative colitis-associated and sporadic colorectal cancer. However, the current results are limited by possible residual confounding and the meta-analysis by heterogeneity in confounding adjustment.

Management, Functional Outcomes, and Quality of Life After Development of Pelvic Sepsis in Patients Undergoing Re-Do Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis.

BACKGROUND: The data on management and outcomes of pelvic sepsis after re-do IPAA are scarce. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to report our management algorithm of pelvic sepsis in the setting of re-do IPAA and compare functional outcomes and quality of life after successful management of pelvic sepsis with a no sepsis control group. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This investigation is based on a single academic practice group experience on re-do IPAA. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent re-do IPAA for ileal pouch failure between September 2016 and September 2020 were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Management of pelvic sepsis was reported. Functional outcomes, restrictions, and quality-of-life scores were compared between the sepsis and no sepsis groups. RESULTS: One-hundred ten patients were included in our study, of whom 25 (22.7%) developed pelvic sepsis. Twenty-three patients presented with pelvic sepsis before ileostomy closure, and 2 patients presented with pelvic sepsis after ileostomy closure. There were 6 pouch failures in the study period due to pelvic sepsis. Our management was successful in 79% of the patients with median follow-up of 26 months. Treatments included interventional radiology abscess drainage (n = 7), IV antibiotics alone (n = 5), interventional radiology drainage and mushroom catheter placement (n = 1), mushroom catheter placement (n = 1), and endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure (n = 1). Average number of bowel movements, urgency, incontinence, pad use, and seepage were comparable between the pelvic sepsis and no pelvic sepsis groups ( p > 0.05). Lifestyle alterations, Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores, and happiness with the results of the surgery were similar ( p > 0.05). LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its low study power and limited follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic sepsis is common after re-do IPAA, and management varies according to the location and size of the abscess/sinus. If detected early, our management strategy was associated with high pouch salvage rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B823 . MANEJO, RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES Y CALIDAD DE VIDA DESPUS DEL DESARROLLO DE SEPSIS PLVICA EN PACIENTES SOMETIDAS A RECONFECCIN DE ANASTOMOSIS ANAL CON BOLSA ILEAL: ANTECEDENTES:Los datos sobre el tratamiento y los resultados de la sepsis pélvica después de reconfección de anastomosis anal, de la bolsa ileal son escasos.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio es informar nuestro algoritmo de manejo de la sepsis pélvica en el contexto de reconfección de anastomosis anal de la bolsa ileal y comparar los resultados funcionales y la calidad de vida después del manejo exitoso de la sepsis pélvica con un grupo de control sin sepsis.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Esta investigación se basa en una experiencia de un solo grupo de práctica académica sobre reconfección de IPAA.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron en el estudio pacientes que se sometieron a una nueva anastomosis anal, del reservorio ileal por falla del reservorio ileal entre el 09/2016 y el 09/2020.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se informó el manejo de la sepsis pélvica. Los resultados funcionales, las restricciones y las puntuaciones de calidad de vida, se compararon entre los grupos con sepsis y sin sepsis.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 110 pacientes en nuestro estudio, de los cuales 25 (22,7) desarrollaron sepsis pélvica. Veintitrés pacientes presentaron sepsis pélvica antes del cierre de la ileostomía y 2 pacientes presentaron sepsis pélvica después del cierre de la ileostomía. Hubo 6 fallas de la bolsa en el período de estudio debido a sepsis pélvica. Nuestro manejo fue exitoso en el 79% de los pacientes con una mediana de seguimiento de 26 meses. Los tratamientos incluyeron drenaje de abscesos IR (n = 7), antibióticos intravenosos solos (n = 5), drenaje IR y colocación de catéter en forma de hongo (n = 1), colocación de catéter en forma de hongo (n = 1) y cierre endoluminal asistido por vacío (n = 1). El número promedio de evacuaciones intestinales, urgencia, incontinencia, uso de almohadillas y filtraciones fueron comparables entre los grupos con sepsis pélvica y sin sepsis pélvica ( p > 0,05). Las alteraciones del estilo de vida, las puntuaciones de la Calidad de vida global de Cleveland y la felicidad con los resultados de la cirugía fueron similares ( p > 0,05).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio está limitado por su bajo poder de estudio y su tiempo de seguimiento limitado.CONCLUSIONES:La sepsis pélvica es común después de la reconfección de anastomosis anal de la bolsa ileal y el manejo varía según la ubicación y el tamaño del absceso / seno. Si se detecta temprano, nuestra estrategia de manejo se asoció con altas tasas de recuperación de la bolsa. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B823 . (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Ileoanal Pouch: Pelvic Sepsis and Poor Function-Now What?

Pelvic sepsis is a dreadful complication after ileal pouch creation. It is mostly treated conservatively, and the ileal pouch can be salvaged if sepsis is detected and treated in a timely manner. Even under the best circumstances, pelvic sepsis is often associated with poor functional outcomes. If pelvic sepsis becomes chronic, it could lead to pouch failure. Redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a viable option in the setting of chronic pelvic sepsis to preserve gastrointestinal continuity in motivated patients. It is associated with similar surgical morbidity, acceptable functional outcomes, and good quality of life. Patients should be involved in the decision-making process after ileal pouch failure. In the setting of ileal pouch failure, surgeons with limited experience may not be comfortable offering patients redo IPAA. Redo IPAA requires subspecialization and patients with ileal pouch failure should be treated at specialized high-volume centers.

Handsewn Versus Stapled IPAA in Redo Setting: Indications, Patient Characteristics, Operative, Functional, and Quality-of-Life Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the type of anastomosis on the outcomes of redo IPAA is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the indications, perioperative outcomes, and functional outcomes in patients undergoing stapled vs handsewn redo IPAA. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This investigation is based on a single academic practice group experience with redo IPAA. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent redo IPAA for ileal pouch failure between September 2016 and May 2020 were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Indications, perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, restrictions, and quality-of-life scores were compared between stapled and handsewn groups. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients underwent redo IPAA for ileal pouch failure of whom 76 (72%) had handsewn and 29 (28%) had stapled reanastomosis. The interval between the index and redo IPAA was shorter in stapled redo IPAA (median (interquartile range), Stapled: 3 years (1-4) vs handsewn: 7 years (3-17), p < 0.001). Handsewn anastomosis was more commonly used after pelvic sepsis (handsewn: n = 57 (76%) vs stapled: n = 13 (45%), p = 0.002). Overall postoperative morbidity was similar between the 2 groups (handsewn: n = 38 (50%) vs stapled: n = 16 (55%), p = 0.635). The number of bowel movements, pad use, daily restrictions, and Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores were similar between stapled and handsewn groups. Although daytime seepage was more common after handsewn anastomosis (handsewn, n = 20 (44%) vs stapled, n = 3 (14%), p = 0.013), nighttime seepage was similar in both groups. Pouch survival rates were comparable: 88% vs 92% (p > 0.05). LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its low study power and limited follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had pelvic sepsis after their index IPAA required handsewn anastomosis at higher rates than other redo cases. Although handsewn anastomosis is a more complex procedure, it is associated with morbidity, functional outcomes, and quality-of-life scores similar to stapled anastomosis for redo IPAA. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B580. RECONSTRUCCIN DE ANASTOMOSIS ILEONAL CON RESERVORIO ILEAL CON SUTURA MANUAL VERSUS ANASTOMOSIS CON ENGRAPADO INDICACIONES, CARACTERSTICAS DEL PACIENTE, RESULTADOS OPERATORIOS, FUNCIONALES Y DE CALIDAD DE VIDA: ANTECEDENTES:Se desconoce el impacto en los resultados del tipo de anastomosis se rehace una anastomosis ileonal con reservorio ileal (IPAA).OBJETIVO:El propósito de este estudio es evaluar las indicaciones, resultados perioperatorios y funcionales en pacientes sometidos a una reconstrucción IPAA con engrapado vs sutura manual.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Esta investigación se basa en la experiencia de un solo grupo de práctica académica sobre reconstrucción IPAA.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron en el estudio pacientes que fueron sometidos a una reconstrucción de IPAA por falla del reservorio ileal entre septiembre del 2016 hasta mayo del 2020.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:se compararon indicaciones, resultados perioperatorios, funcionales, restricciones y puntuaciones de calidad de vida entre los grupos de engrapado y sutura manual.RESULTADOS:Un total de 105 pacientes fueron sometidos a una reconstrucción de IPAA por falla del reservorio ileal, de los cuales 76 (72%) fueron reanastomosis con sutura manual y 29 (28%) con engrapado. El intervalo entre la cirugía inicial y la reintervención de IPAA fue más corto en la reconstrucción de IPAA con engrapado [mediana (IQR), engrapado: 3 años (1-4) vs con sutura manual: 7 años (3-17), p <0,001]. La anastomosis con sutura manual se realizo con mayor frecuencia después de sepsis pélvica [sutura manual: n = 57 (76%) vs engrapado: n = 13 (45%), p = 0,002]. La morbilidad postoperatoria total fue similar entre los dos grupos [sutura manual: n = 38 (50%) vs engrapado: n = 16 (55%), p = 0,635]. El número de evacuaciones intestinales, el uso de paños protectores, restricciones diarias y puntuaciones en CGQL fueron similares entre los grupos de engrapado y sutura manual. Si bien el manchado por la mañana fue más común después de la anastomosis con sutura manual [sutura manual, n = 20 (44%) vs engrapado, n = 3 (14%), p = 0.013], el manchado por la noche fue similar en ambos grupos. Las tasas de sobrevida con reservorio fueron comparables; 88% vs 92% respectivamente (p> 0,05).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio está limitado por su bajo poder de estudio y su tiempo de seguimiento limitado.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes que tuvieron sepsis pélvica después de su primer IPAA, requirieron anastomosis con sutura manual en un porcentaje más alto que otros procedimientos de reintervención. Si bien es cierto, la anastomosis con sutura manual es un procedimiento mucho más complejo; este se asoció a una morbilidad, resultados funcionales y puntuaciones de calidad de vida similares en comparación a la anastomosis con engrapado cuando se rehace la IPAA. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B580. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Statistical, Clinical, Methodological Evaluation of Local Recurrence Following Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: A recent Norwegian moratorium challenged the status quo of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer by reporting increased early multifocal local recurrences. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the local recurrence rates following transanal total mesorectal excision as well as to assess statistical, clinical, and methodological bias in reports published to date. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed and MEDLINE (via Ovid) databases were systematically searched. STUDY SELECTION: Descriptive or comparative studies reporting rates of local recurrence at a median follow-up of 6 months (or more) after transanal total mesorectal excision were included. INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent transanal total mesorectal excision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Local recurrence was any recurrence located in the pelvic surgery site. The untransformed proportion method of 1-arm meta-analysis was utilized. Untransformed percent proportion with 95% confidence interval was reported. Ad hoc meta-regression with the Omnibus test was utilized to assess risk factors for local recurrence. Among-study heterogeneity was evaluated: statistically by I2 and τ2, clinically by summary tables, and methodologically by a 33-item questionnaire. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies totaling 2906 patients were included. The pooled rate of local recurrence was 3.4% (2.7%-4.0%) at an average of 20.1 months with low statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Meta-regression yielded no correlation between complete total mesorectal excision quality (p = 0.855), circumferential resection margin (p = 0.268), distal margin (p = 0.886), and local recurrence rates. Clinical heterogeneity was substantial. Methodological heterogeneity was linked to the excitement of novelty, loss aversion, reactivity to criticism, indication for transanal total mesorectal excision, nonprobability sampling, circular reasoning, misclassification, inadequate follow-up, reporting bias, conflict of interest, and self-licensing. LIMITATIONS: The studies included had an observational design and limited sample and follow-up. CONCLUSION: This systematic review found a pooled rate of local recurrence of 3.4% at 20 months. However, given the substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity across the studies, the evidence for or against transanal total mesorectal excision is inconclusive at this time.

Tailored total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: One size may not fit for all!

While current neoadjuvant protocols have proven benefits on local control for majority of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, there are certain clinical conditions that require future advances for improving the outcomes. Total neoadjuvant therapy incorporates systemic chemotherapy planned within standard neoadjuvant protocols either before or after radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer as a whole. Enhanced compliance with planned oncological therapy, tumour downstaging, administration of chemotherapy at the earliest time in the disease course to help assessing chemosensitivity are the proposed benefits of total neoadjuvant therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Patient selection criteria for administration of total neoadjuvant therapy in the recent guidelines are unclear. Since current literature is inconclusive for the optimal sequence and type of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, premature incorporation of total neoadjuvant therapy for all locally advanced rectal cancers may result in overtreatment and subsequently toxicity. This article aims to discuss the current literature and to propose a future perspective by considering real-life scenarios reflecting patients' needs for treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Reporting Templates for MRI and Water-Soluble Contrast Enema in Patients With Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis: Experience From a Large Referral Center.

Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery is the reference standard surgical procedure for treatment of ulcerative colitis and most patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. This procedure allows preservation of fecal continence and gastrointestinal continuity. However, it is associated with a wide variety of complications, which often have nonspecific and overlapping clinical presentations, making imaging an important part of workup for pouch dysfunction. The purpose of this article is to propose structured reporting templates for MRI and water-soluble contrast enema (WSCE), based on our referral pouch center's experience, in patients who have undergone IPAA surgery. We review salient surgical technique, pouch anatomy, and imaging protocols, with an emphasis on a systematic search pattern for evaluation of ileal pouch complications using proposed structured reporting templates for MRI and WSCE.

Surgical Management of Ulcerative Colitis.

Ulcerative colitis can be managed by surgical resection of the colon and rectum. The final reconstruction options of traditional end ileostomy, continent ileostomy, ileorectal anastomosis, or ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA). We maintain that the IPAA is the gold standard management of ulcerative colitis and should be performed in stages. This article includes descriptions of technique, management alternatives, and intraoperative and postoperative management of pouch issues.