Advertisement

Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 22, Issue 11, pp 867–873 | Cite as

Technical variations and feasibility of transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and inflammatory bowel disease unclassified across continents

  • K. Zaghiyan
  • J. Warusavitarne
  • A. Spinelli
  • P. Chandrasinghe
  • F. Di Candido
  • P. Fleshner
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Initial reports of transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (taIPAA) suggest safety and feasibility compared with transabdominal IPAA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in technique and results of taIPAA in three centers performing taIPAA across two continents.

Methods

Prospective IPAA registries from three institutions in the US and Europe were queried for patients undergoing taIPAA. Demographic, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were compiled into a single database and evaluated.

Results

Sixty-two patients (median age 38 years; range 16–68 years, 43 (69%) male) underwent taIPAA in the three centers (USA 24, UK 23, Italy 15). Most patients had had a subtotal colectomy before taIPAA [n = 55 (89%)]. Median surgical time was 266 min (range 180–576 min) and blood loss 100 ml (range 10–500 ml). Technical variations across the three institutions included proctectomy plane of dissection (intramesorectal or total mesorectal excision plane), specimen extraction site (future ileostomy site vs. anus), ileo-anal anastomosis technique (stapled vs. hand sewn) and use of fluorescence angiography. Despite technical differences, anastomotic leak rates (5/62; 8%) and overall complications (18/62; 29%) were acceptable across the three centers.

Conclusions

This is the first collaborative report showing safety and feasibility of taIPAA. Despite technical variations, outcomes are similar across centers. A large multi-institutional, international IPAA collaborative is needed to compare technical factors and outcomes.

Keywords

IPAA Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis TaTME TaIPAA Transanal 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

PF—teaching honorarium from Applied Medical, Inc. AS—teaching honorarium from Applied Medical, Inc. KZ—financial assistance for course attendance from Applied Medical, Inc.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from patients across the sites.

References

  1. 1.
    Baek SJ, Dozois EJ, Mathis KL, Lightner AL, Boostrom SY, Cima RR, Pemberton JH, Larson DW (2016) Safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes in 588 patients undergoing minimally invasive ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a single-institution experience. Tech Coloproctol 20:369–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rencuzogullari A, Gorgun E, Costedio M, Aytac E, Kessler H, Abbas MA, Remzi FH (2016) Case-matched comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for inflammatory bowel disease. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:e37–e40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Larson DW, Cima RR, Dozois EJ, Davies M, Piotrowicz K, Barnes SA, Wolff B, Pemberton J (2006) Safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic ileal-pouch-anal anastomosis: a single institutional case-matched experience. Ann Surg 243:667–670 (discussion 70–72) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    White I, Jenkins JT, Coomber R, Clark SK, Phillips RK, Kennedy RH (2014) Outcomes of laparoscopic and open restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 101:1160–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hull TL, Joyce MR, Geisler DP, Coffey JC (2012) Adhesions after laparoscopic and open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery for ulcerative colitis. Br J Surg 99:270–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Polle SW, Dunker MS, Slors JF, Sprangers MA, Cuesta MA, Gouma DJ, Bemelman WA (2007) 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 21:1301–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hiranyakas A, Rather A, da Silva G, Weiss EG, Wexner SD (2013) Loop ileostomy closure after laparoscopic versus open surgery: is there a difference? Surg Endosc 27:90–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beyer-Berjot L, Maggiori L, Birnbaum D, Lefevre JH, Berdah S, Panis Y (2013) A total laparoscopic approach reduces the infertility rate after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a 2-center study. Ann Surg 258:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benlice C, Gorgun E (2016) Single-port laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis using a left lower quadrant ileostomy site—a video vignette. Colorectal Dis 18:818–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gash KJ, Goede AC, Kaldowski B, Vestweber B, Dixon AR (2011) Single incision laparoscopic (SILS) restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Surg Endosc 25:3877–3880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Remzi FH, Lavryk OA, Ashburn JH, Hull TL, Lavery IC, Dietz DW, Kessler H, Church JM (2017) Restorative proctocolectomy: an example of how surgery evolves in response to paradigm shifts in care. Colorectal Dis 19:1003–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sylla P, Rattner DW, Delgado S, Lacy AM (2014) NOTES transanal rectal cancer resection using transanal endoscopic microsurgery and laparoscopic assistance. Surg Endosc 24:1205–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Atallah S (2014) Transanal minimally invasive surgery for total mesorectal excision. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 23:10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chouillard E, Regnier A, Vitte RL, Bonnet BV, Greco V, Chahine E, Daher R, Biagini J (2016) Transanal NOTES total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer: Is anatomy better preserved? Tech Coloproctol 20:537–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Lacy FB, van Laarhoven J, Pena R, Arroyave MC, Bravo R, Cuatrecasas M, Lacy AM (2018) Transanal total mesorectal excision: pathological results of 186 patients with mid and low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 32:2442–2447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Persiani R, Biondi A, Pennestri F, Fico V, De Simone V, Tirelli F, Santullo F, D’Ugo D (2018) Transanal total mesorectal excision vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in the treatment of low and middle rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 61:809–816PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Penna M, Hompes R, Arnold S, Wynn G, Austin R, Warusavitarne J, Moran B, Hanna GB, Mortensen NJ, Tekkis PP (2017) Transanal total mesorectal excision: international registry results of the first 720 cases. Ann Surg 266:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Buck van Overstraeten A, Wolthuis AM, D’Hoore A (2016) Transanal completion proctectomy after total colectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: a modified single stapled technique. Colorectal Dis 18:141–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leo CA, Samaranayake S, Perry-Woodford ZL, Vitone L, Faiz O, Hodgkinson JD, Shaikh I, Warusavitarne J (2016) Initial experience of restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis by transanal total mesorectal rectal excision and single-incision abdominal laparoscopic surgery. Colorectal Dis 18:1162–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Buck van Overstraeten A, Mark-Christensen A, Wasmann KA, Bastiaenen VP, Buskens CJ, Wolthuis AM, Vanbrabant K, D’Hoore A, Bemelman WA, Tottrup A, Tanis PJ (2017) Te Ann Surg 266:878–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J (1994) Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 47:1245–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Silverberg MS, Satsangi J, Ahmad T, Arnott ID, Bernstein CN, Brant SR, Caprilli R, Colombel JF, Gasche C, Geboes K, Jewell DP, Karban A, Loftus EV Jr, Pena AS, Riddell RH, Sachar DB, Schreiber S, Steinhart AH, Targan SR, Vermeire S, Warren BF (2005) Toward an integrated clinical, molecular and serological classification of inflammatory bowel disease: report of a Working Party of the 2005 Montreal World Congress of Gastroenterology. Can J Gastroenterol 19(Suppl A):5–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bartels SA, Gardenbroek TJ, Aarts M, Ponsioen CY, Tanis PJ, Buskens CJ, Bemelman WA (2015) Short-term morbidity and quality of life from a randomized clinical trial of close rectal dissection and total mesorectal excision in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 102:281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li W, Benlice C, Stocchi L, Kessler H, Gorgun E, Costedio M (2017) Does stoma site specimen extraction increase postoperative ileostomy complication rates? Surg Endosc 31:3552–3558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Denost Q, Adam JP, Pontallier A, Celerier B, Laurent C, Rullier E (2015) Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 261:138–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hellan M, Spinoglio G, Pigazzi A, Lagares-Garcia JA (2014) The influence of fluorescence imaging on the location of bowel transection during robotic left-sided colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1695–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    James DR, Ris F, Yeung TM, Kraus R, Buchs NC, Mortensen NJ, Hompes RJ (2015) Fluorescence angiography in laparoscopic low rectal and anorectal anastomoses with pinpoint perfusion imaging–a critical appraisal with specific focus on leak risk reduction. Colorectal Dis 17(Suppl 3):16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Spinelli A, Cantore F, Kotze PG, David G, Sacchi M, Carvello M (2017) Fluorescence angiography during transanal trans-stomal proctectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a video vignette. Colorectal Dis.  https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13992 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee L, Kelly J, Nassif GJ, deBeche-Adams TC, Albert MR, Monson JRT (2018) Defining the learning curve for transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6360-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koedam TWA, Veltcamp Helbach M, van de Ven PM, Kruyt PM, van Heek NT, Bonjer HJ, Tuynman JB, Sietses C (2018) Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: evaluation of the learning curve. Tech Coloproctol 22:279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Zaghiyan
    • 1
  • J. Warusavitarne
    • 2
    • 3
  • A. Spinelli
    • 4
  • P. Chandrasinghe
    • 5
  • F. Di Candido
    • 4
  • P. Fleshner
    • 1
  1. 1.Cedars Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.St Mark’s HospitalLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Surgery and Cancer Imperial CollegeLondonUK
  4. 4.Humanitas HospitalMilanItaly
  5. 5.University of KelaniyaKelaniyaSri Lanka

Personalised recommendations