Outcomes and Management of the Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis in the Elderly.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the preferred surgical treatment for patients undergoing colectomy to maintain intestinal continuity. Earlier studies have suggested that outcomes are worse in elderly patients who underwent IPAA. However, more recent reports have shown that IPAA outcomes in the elderly are comparable to younger patients. We review the recent medical literature regarding outcomes and treatments for common complications in elderly IPAA patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Compared to younger patients, IPAA in the elderly is not associated with increased major surgical complications, but is associated with increased length of stay and re-admission rate for dehydration in older patients. Rates of fecal incontinence after IPAA were similar between younger and older patients. Sacral nerve stimulation has shown early promise as a possible treatment for fecal incontinence after IPAA, but more research is needed. Pouchitis is a common complication, and antibiotics remain first-line treatment options. Other treatment options include mesalamines, steroids, immunomodulators, and biologics. The efficacy of newer biologics such as vedolizumab and ustekinumab has been reported, but more data is needed. IPAA is safe in the elderly with high self-reported patient satisfaction. However, the elderly IPAA patient warrants special consideration regarding outcomes and management.

A Randomized Trial on the Efficacy of Topical Anesthesia for Pain Reduction during Frame Placement for Gamma Knife Radiosurgery.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Frame application for gamma knife radiosurgery (GKR) may be perceived as painful by patients. This study was designed to assess the efficacy of EMLA (2.5% lidocaine/2.5% prilocaine) in pain reduction. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, and controlled trial approved by our institutional review board. Fifty-four patients undergoing outpatient GKR were divided into EMLA and placebo groups. Prior to frame placement, EMLA/placebo was applied to the patient's forehead. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to measure pain during 4 intervals: frontal injections, occipital injections, frontal screw insertion, and overall discomfort. This study was designed to observe a difference of 1.0 on the VAS at a power of 95%. RESULTS: VAS for EMLA versus placebo for frontal injections (5.2 ± 2.7 vs. 5.7 ± 2.0, respectively; p < 0.45), back injections, (6.5 ± 2.2 vs. 5.9 ± 2.3, respectively; p < 0.30), frontal pins (4.6 ± 2.7 vs. 4.6 ± 2.2, respectively; p < 0.99), and overall discomfort (p < 0.29) were not significantly different. A comparison between back and frontal injections for EMLA (6.54 vs. 5.19, respectively; p < 0.16) and placebo (5.89 vs. 5.68, respectively; p < 0.69) showed no significant difference between group and location (p < 0.21). CONCLUSION: Application of EMLA did not significantly reduce pain when used preoperatively for frame fixation. EMLA is no longer used as part of our routine for patients undergoing GKR.