Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic Restorative Proctocolectomy with Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis: A Comparative Observational Study on Long-term Functional Results

  • original article
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Long-term results after laparoscopic ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) have not been thoroughly evaluated. Our study prospectively compares short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open IPAA.

Methods

Between October 2002 and November 2007, 73 laparoscopic and 106 open IPAA patients were enrolled. Patient- and disease-specific characteristics and short- and long-term outcomes were prospectively collected.

Results

There were no differences in demographics, treatment, indication, duration of surgery, and diversion between groups. Laparoscopic patients had faster return of flatus (p = 0.008), faster assumption of a liquid diet (p < 0.001), and less blood loss (p = 0.026). While complications were similar, the incidence of incisional hernias was lower in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.011). Mean follow-up was 24.8 months. Average number of bowel movements was 6.8 ± 2.8/day for laparoscopy and 6.3 ± 1.7 for open (p = 0.058). Overall, 68.4% of patients were fully continent at 1 year, up to 83.7% long term without differences between groups. Other indicators of defecatory function and quality of life remain similar overtime.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic IPAA confers excellent functional results. Most patients are fully continent and have an average of six bowel movements/day. When present, minor incontinence improves over time. Laparoscopy mirrors the results of open IPAA and is a valuable alternative to open surgery.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jarnerot G, Hertervig E, Friis-Liby I, et al. Infliximab as rescue therapy in severe to moderately severe ulcerative colitis: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Gastroenterology 2005;128(7):1805–1811. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2005.03.003.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rutgeerts P, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. Infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 2005;353(23):2462–2476. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa050516.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Larson DW, Dozois EJ, Piotrowicz K, Cima RR, Wolff BG, Young-Fadok TM. Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: functional outcome in a case-matched series. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48(10):1845–1850. doi:10.1007/s10350-005-0143-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Marcello PW, Milsom JW, Wong SK, et al. Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: case-matched comparative study with open restorative proctocolectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43(5):604–608. doi:10.1007/BF02235570.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Meier AH, Roth L, Cilley RE, Dillon PW. Completely minimally invasive approach to restorative total proctocolectomy with j-pouch construction in children. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2007;17(5):418–421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fazio VW, Ziv Y, Church JM, et al. Ileal pouch-anal anastomoses complications and function in 1005 patients. Ann Surg 1995;222(2):120–127. doi:10.1097/00000658-199508000-00003.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Michelassi F, Lee J, Rubin M, et al. Long-term functional results after ileal pouch anal restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis: a prospective observational study. Ann Surg 2003;238(3):433–441, discussion 42–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Larson DW, Davies MM, Dozois EJ, et al. Sexual function, body image, and quality of life after laparoscopic and open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 2008;51(4):392–396. doi:10.1007/s10350-007-9180-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Larson DW, Cima RR, Dozois EJ, et al. Safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic ileal-pouch-anal anastomosis: a single institutional case-matched experience. Ann Surg 2006;243(5):667–670, discussion 70–72. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000216762.83407.d2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Maartense S, Dunker MS, Slors JF, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 2004;240(6):984–991, discussion 91–92. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000145923.03130.1c.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Polle SW, Dunker MS, Slors JF, et al. Body image, cosmesis, quality of life, and functional outcome of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy: long-term results of a randomized trial. Surg Endosc 2007;21(8):1301–1307. doi:10.1007/s00464-007-9294-9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dunker MS, Bemelman WA, Slors JF, van Duijvendijk P, Gouma DJ. Functional outcome, quality of life, body image, and cosmesis in patients after laparoscopic-assisted and conventional restorative proctocolectomy: a comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 2001;44(12):1800–1807. doi:10.1007/BF02234458.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fichera A, Ragauskaite L, Silvestri MT, et al. Preservation of the anal transition zone in ulcerative colitis. Long-term effects on defecatory function. J Gastrointest Surg 2007;11(12):1647–1652, discussion 52–53. doi:10.1007/s11605-007-0321-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Michelassi F, Block GE. A simplified technique for ileal J-pouch construction. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993;176(3):290–294.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fichera A, Peng SL, Elisseou NM, Rubin MA, Hurst RD. Laparoscopy or conventional open surgery for patients with ileocolonic Crohn’s disease? A prospective study. Surgery 2007;142(4):566–571, discussion 71 e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hurst RD, Chung TP, Rubin M, Michelassi F. The implications of acute pouchitis on the long-term functional results after restorative proctocolectomy. Inflamm Bowel Dis 1998;4(4):280–284. doi:10.1002/ibd.3780040405.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hurst RD, Finco C, Rubin M, Michelassi F. Prospective analysis of perioperative morbidity in one hundred consecutive colectomies for ulcerative colitis. Surgery 1995;118(4):748–754. doi:10.1016/S0039-6060(05)80045-5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hurst RD, Molinari M, Chung TP, Rubin M, Michelassi F. Prospective study of the incidence, timing and treatment of pouchitis in 104 consecutive patients after restorative proctocolectomy. Arch Surg 1996;131(5):497–500.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Michelassi F, Hurst R. Restorative proctocolectomy with J-pouch ileoanal anastomosis. Arch Surg 2000;135(3):347–353. doi:10.1001/archsurg.135.3.347.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ky AJ, Sonoda T, Milsom JW. One-stage laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: an alternative to the conventional approach. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45(2):207–210, discussion 10–11. doi:10.1007/s10350-004-6149-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang H, Hu S, Zhang G, et al. Laparoscopic versus open proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2007;16(3):187–191. doi:10.1080/13645700701384090.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Akman PC. A study of five hundred incisional hernias. J Int Coll Surg 1962;37:125–142.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Andersen LP, Klein M, Gögenur I, Rosenberg J. Incisional hernia after open versus laparoscopic sigmoid resection. Surg Endosc 2008;22(9):2026–2029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Duepree HJ, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW. Does means of access affect the incidence of small bowel obstruction and ventral hernia after bowel resection? Laparoscopy versus laparotomy. J Am Coll Surg 2003;197(2):177–181. doi:10.1016/S1072-7515(03)00232-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, MC 5095, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    Alessandro Fichera, Mark T. Silvestri, Roger D. Hurst & Michele A. Rubin

  2. Department of Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 525 E. 68th St., New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Fabrizio Michelassi

Authors
  1. Alessandro Fichera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark T. Silvestri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roger D. Hurst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michele A. Rubin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fabrizio Michelassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Fichera.

Additional information

This study was funded in part by the University of Chicago Cancer Research Foundation (UCCRF) Auxiliary Board Research Support Grant (A.F.).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fichera, A., Silvestri, M.T., Hurst, R.D. et al. Laparoscopic Restorative Proctocolectomy with Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis: A Comparative Observational Study on Long-term Functional Results. J Gastrointest Surg 13, 526–532 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0755-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0755-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation