Advertisement

Is the Kock pouch still a viable option?

  • A. M. VernavaIII
  • S. M. Goldberg
Current Practice

Conclusion

Despite the success the Kock pouch has had in providing continence for many patients requiring ileostomy, the procedure has failed to gain widespread acceptance as a viable option for patients requiring proctocolectomy. The reasons for this include the complexity of the operation, the initial reports of high complication rates associated with the Kock pouch and the advent of the ileo-anal reservoir. However, technical developments and experience have led to a progressive decline in both early and late complications. Early complications now approximate to those of any other major intra-abdominal bowel operation. The incidence of late complications requiring revisional surgery has decreased from 54% to 9.3%–25%. Operative mortality, originally reported as high as 4.3%, is now almost zero. Although the ileo-anal reservoir is the preferred alternative to conventional ileostomy, it is not suited to all patients. The current status of the continent ileostomy and its role in patients with inflammatory bowel disease is reviewed. Any surgeon interested in providing a continent option for the patient requiring proctocolectomy should be aware of the significant improvement in the operative results of the conztinent ileostomy using contemporary surgical techniques.

The answer to the question “Is the Kock pouch still a viable option?” is therefore unequivocally yes. Recent advances in surgical technique and postoperative care have decreased the incidence of complications to acceptable levels when performed by experienced surgeons. Patients unsuited to restorative proctocolectomy and those 5–15% of patients who have failed after restorative proctocolectomy may desire a continent option. The Kock pouch still offers a valuable alternative to conventional ileostomy in these patients.

Keywords

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Operative Result Late Complication Operative Mortality Viable Option 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kock NG (1969) Intra-abdominal “reservoir” in patients with permanent ileostomy. Preliminary observations on a procedure resulting in fecal continence in five ileostomy patients. Arch Surg 99:223–231Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kock NG, Myrvold HE, Nilsson LD (1980) Progress report on the continent ileostomy. World J Surg 4:143–8Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kock NG, Myrvold HE, Nilsson LO, Philipson BM (1981) Continent ileostomy. An account of 314 patients. Acta Chir Scand 147:67–72Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gerber A, Apt MK, Craig PH (1984) The improved quality of life with the Kock continent ileostomy. J Clin Gastroenterol 6:513–7Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mcleod RS, Fazio VW (1984) Quality of life with the continent ileostomy. World J Surg 8:90–5Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kock NG, Brevinge H, Philipson BM, Ojerskog B (1986) Continent ileostomy. The present technique and long term results. Ann Chir Gynaecol 75:63–70Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hulten L, Svaninger G (1984) Facts about the continent ileostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 27:553–7Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gerber A, Apt MK, Craig PH (1983) The Kock continent ileostomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 156:345–50Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barnett WO (1987) New approaches for continent ostomy construction. J Miss State Med Assoc 28:1–3Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Olsson SA, Fredlund P, Pettersson V, Petersson BG (1987) Continent ileostomy. A follow up study of 60 patients. Acta Chir Scand 153:119–22Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Skinner DG, Lieskovsky G, Boyd SD (1984) Technique for creation of a continent internal ileal reservoir (Kock pouch) for urinary diversion. Urol Clin North Am 11:741Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nicholls RJ (1982) The continent ileostomy and restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir. Clin Gastroenterol 11:247–59Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hulten L, Fasth S (1981) Loop ileostomy for protection of the newly constructed ileostomy reservoir. Br J Surg 68:11–13Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rothenberger DA, Wong WD, Buls JG, Goldberg SM, Christenson CE (1984) Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir and ileonal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial polyposis. Dig Surg 1:19Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kelly KA (1985) Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis after proctocolectomy. Surg Rounds (January) p 48Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hulten L (1985) The continent ileostomy (Kock's pouch) versus the restorative proctocolectomy (pelvic pouch). World J Surg 9:952–9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bloom RJ, Larsen CP, Watt R, Oberhelman HA (1986) A reappraisal of the Kock continent ileostomy in patients with Crohn's disease. Surg Gynecol Obstet 162:105–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. VernavaIII
    • 1
  • S. M. Goldberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Colon and Rectal SurgeryUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations