Sacral nerve stimulation in patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.

PURPOSE: Functional results after proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) are generally good. However, some patients suffer from high stool frequency or fecal incontinence. Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) may represent a therapeutic alternative in these patients, but little is known about indication and results. The aim of this study was to evaluate incontinence after IPAA and demonstrate SNS feasibility in these patients. METHODS: This retrospective study includes patients who received a SNS between 1993 and 2020 for increased stool frequency or fecal incontinence after proctocolectomy with IPAA for ulcerative colitis. Proctocolectomy was performed in a two- or three-step approach with ileostomy closure as the last step. Demographic, follow-up data and functional results were obtained from the hospital database. RESULTS: SNS was performed in 23 patients. Median follow-up time after SNS was 6.5 years (min. 4.2-max. 8.8). Two patients were lost to follow-up. The median time from ileostomy closure to SNS implantation was 6 years (min. 0.5-max. 14.5). Continence after SNS improved in 16 patients (69%) with a median St. Marks score for anal incontinence of 19 (min. 4-max. 22) before SNS compared to 4 (0-10) after SNS placement (p = 0.012). In seven patients, SNS therapy was not successful. CONCLUSION: SNS implantation improves symptoms in over two-thirds of patients suffering from high stool frequency or fecal incontinence after proctocolectomy with IPAA. Awareness of the beneficial effects of SNS should be increased in physicians involved in the management of these patients.

[Proctocolectomy in ulcerative colitis : is a multistep procedure in cases of immunosuppression advisable?]. / Die Proktokolektomie bei Colitis ulcerosa : Ist ein mehrzeitiges Vorgehen bei Immunsuppression sinnvoll?

BACKGROUND: The coloproctomucosectomy (CPM) is the procedure of the choice for the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). In cases with pronounced immunosuppression (IS), a 3-step (3S) procedure [i.e., subtotal colectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) and finally ileostomy reconstruction] is often selected. Fewer perioperative complications can be expected compared to the 2-step (2S) procedure; however, an additional in-hospital stay and surgical intervention are necessary. The aim of the present study was to compare both approaches using the clinical outcome of our patients undergoing IPAA to determine efficacy of these two concepts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1997-2010, a total of 225 patients were operated using a 2S or 3S IPAA procedure. Clinical outcomes were evaluated based on the number of surgical steps for the ileoanal pouch procedure and IPAA. The survey was performed within the scope of prospective study. RESULTS: Of the 225 patients with CPM, 66 were excluded due to a diagnosis other than UC (familial adenomatous polyposis, indeterminate colitis, Crohn's disease) and patients with permanent ILS procedures without the possibility or wish for an IPAA (n = 54). Included were 71 patients with 2S (w = 30, m = 41) and 34 patients with 3S procedures (w = 21, m = 13). Compared to the 2S procedure, the 3S procedure was shown to have shorter operation times (246 versus 296 min; p = 0.05), shorter hospital stays (15.5 versus 24.6 days; p = 0.05), shorter intensive care unit stays (3.3 versus 7.2 days; p = 0.05), and fewer major complications (5.9 % versus 22.5 %; p = 0.035). Patients with 3S procedures had a higher BMI (26.2 versus 23.1 kg/m²; p = 0.05) and fewer required IS (10 % vs. 62 %; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The decision for a 3S procedure in UC and pronounced IS is advisable and justified. Using a 3S procedure, immunosuppression and its influence on perioperative morbidity are thus reduced. The IPAA can be performed with shorter operation times, shorter hospital stays and fewer major complications.

Predictors of permanent ileostomy after restorative proctocolectomy.

BACKGROUND: Proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a surgical approach for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. This study evaluated predictors of the need for a permanent ileostomy to identify patients at high risk of IPAA failure. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent proctocolectomy and IPAA between 1997 and 2008. A logistic regression model was used for multivariable analysis of potential risk factors. RESULTS: Proctocolectomy was combined with IPAA in 185 patients, of whom 169 had a loop ileostomy formed. IPAA and ileostomy closure were successful in 162 patients (87.6 per cent). Reasons for not closing the ileostomy included pouch failure (16 patients), patient choice (5) and death (2). Thus one in eight patients had a permanent ileostomy after planned IPAA. Age was the major predictor of the need for a permanent ileostomy in multivariable analysis (P = 0.002) with a probability of more than 25 per cent in patients aged over 60 years. However, advancing age was associated with colitis, co-morbidity, obesity and corticosteroid use. CONCLUSION: The probability of the need for a permanent ileostomy after IPAA increases with age.