Advertisement

MRI defecography of the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis—contributes little to the understanding of functional outcome

  • M. L. Sunde
  • A. Negård
  • T. Øresland
  • N. Bakka
  • J. T. Geitung
  • A. E. Færden
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Variability in functional outcome after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is to a large extent unexplained. The aim of this study was to use MRI to evaluate the morphology, emptying pattern and other pathology that may explain differences in functional outcome between well-functioning and poorly functioning pouch patients. A secondary aim was to establish a reference of normal MRI findings in pelvic pouch patients.

Methods

From a previous study, the best and worst functioning patients undergoing IPAA surgery between 2000 and 2013 had been identified and examined with manovolumetric tests (N = 47). The patients were invited to do a pelvic MRI investigating pouch morphology and emptying patterns, followed by a pouch endoscopy.

Results

Forty-three patients underwent MRI examination. We found no significant morphological or dynamic differences between the well-functioning and poorly functioning pouch patients. There was no correlation between urge volume and the volume of the bony pelvis, and no correlation between emptying difficulties or leakage and dynamic MRI findings. Morphological MRI signs of inflammation were present in the majority of patients and were not correlated to histological signs of inflammation. Of the radiological signs of inflammation, only pouch wall thickness correlated to endoscopic pouchitis disease activity index scores.

Conclusion

It seems MRI does not increase the understanding of factors contributing to functional outcome after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Unless there is a clinical suspicion of perianal/peripouch disease or pelvic sepsis, MRI does not add value as a diagnostic tool for pelvic pouch patients. Endoscopy remains the golden standard for diagnosing pouch inflammation.

Keywords

Ulcerative colitis Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis Functional outcome MRI dephecography 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research and publication is funded by research grants from the University of Oslo and Akershus University Hospital. The article is being submitted as an original article. The manuscript with related data, figures and tables has not previously been published and is not under consideration elsewhere, nor has it been presented at any scientific meeting or conference. There are no conflicts of interest associated with this publication.

Author contributions

All authors participated in conceiving the study and its design. MLS coordinated the study, performed the data analyses and statistical analyses and drafted the manuscript. AN and NB analysed and described the MRI images. All have read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

The study was approved by the regional and local ethics committee (REK no 2014/2206).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Parks A, Nicholls RJ (1978) Proctocolectomy without ileostomy for ulcerative colitis. Br Med J 2:85–88CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heuschen UA, Hinz U, Allemeyer EH, Autschbach F, Stern J, Lucas M, Herfarth C, Heuschen G (2002) Risk factors for ileoanal J pouch-related septic complications in ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. Ann Surg 235:207–216CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hueting WE, Buskens E, van der Tweel I, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ (2005) Results and complications after ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of 43 observational studies comprising 9,317 patients. Dig Surg 22:69–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Zeeuw S, Ali UA, Donders RART, Hueting WE, Keus F, van Laarhoven CJHM (2012) Update of complications and functional outcome of the ileo-pouch anal anastomosis: overview of evidence and meta-analysis of 96 observational studies. Int J Color Dis 27:843–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meagher AP, Farouk R, Dozois RR, Kelly KA, Pemberton JH (1998) J ileal pouch–anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis: complications and long-term outcome in 1310 patients. Br J Surg 85:800–803CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tekkis PP, Lovegrove RE, Tilney HS, Smith JJ, Sagar PM, Shorthouse AJ, Mortensen NJ, Nicholls RJ (2010) Long-term failure and function after restorative proctocolectomy—a multi-centre study of patients from the UK National Ileal Pouch Registry. Color Dis 12(5):433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tulchinsky H, Hawley PR, Nicholls J (2003) Long-term failure after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. Ann Surg 238(2):229–234PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fazio VW, Kiran RP, Remzi FH, Coffey JC, Heneghan HM, Kirat HT, Manilich E, Shen B, Martin ST (2013) Ileal pouch anal anastomosis: analysis of outcome and quality of life in 3707 patients. Ann Surg 257(4):679–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oresland T, Bemelman WA, Sampietro GM et al (2015) European evidence based consensus on surgery for ulcerative colitis. J Crohn’s Colitis 9(1):4–25Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Michelassi F, Lee J, Rubin M et al (2003) Long-term functional results after ileal pouch anal restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis: a prospective observational study. Ann Surg 238(3):433–441PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lovegrove RE, Constantinides VA, Heriot AG, Athanasiou T, Darzi A, Remzi FH, Nicholls RJ, Fazio VW, Tekkis PP (2006) A comparison of hand-sewn versus stapled ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) following proctocolectomy: a meta-analysis of 4183 patients. Ann Surg 244(1):18–26CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keighley MRB, Winslet MC, Flinn R, Kmiot W (1989) Multivariate analysis of factors influencing the results of restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 76:740–744CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Annibali R, Øresland T, Hultén L (1994) Does the level of stapled ileoanal anastomosis influence physiologic and functional outcome? Dis Colon Rectum 37:321–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hallgren T, Fasth S, Nordgren S, Øresland T, Hallsberg L, Hultén L (1989) Manovolumetric characteristics and functional results in three different pelvic pouch designs. Int J Color Dis 4:156–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hallgren T, Fasth S, Nordgren S, Øresland T, Hultén L (1990) The stapled ileal pouch–anal anastomosis. A randomized study comparing two different pouch designs. Scand J Gastroenterol 25:1161–1168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Øresland T, Fasth S, Nordgren S, Åkervall S, Hultén L (1990) Pouch size: the important functional determinant after restorative proctocolecotmy. Br J Surg 77:165–269Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Øresland T, Fasth S, Nordgren S, Hallgren T, Hultén L (1990) A prospective randomized comparison of two different pelvic pouch designs. Scand J Gastroenterol 25:986–996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rink AD, Nagelschmidt M, Radinski I, Vestweber KH (Aug 2008) Evaluation of vector manometry for characterization of functional outcome after restorative proctocolectomy. Int J Color Dis 23(8):807–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rink AD, Kneist W, Radinski I, Guinot-Barona A, Lang H, Vestweber KH (Apr 2010) Differences in ano-neorectal physiology of ileoanal and coloanal reconstructions for restorative proctectomy. Color Dis 12(4):342–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levitt MD, Kamm MA, Groom J, Hawley PR, Nicholls RJ (1992) lleoanal pouch compliance and motor function. Br J Surg 79:126–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldberg PA, Kamm MA, Nicholls RJ, Morris G, Britton KE (1997) Contribution of gastrointestinal transit and pouch characteristics in determining pouch function. Gut 40:790–793CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liszewski MC, Sahni VA, Shyn PB, Friedman S, Hornick JL, Erturk SM, Mortele KJ (2012) Multidetector-row computed tomography enterographic assessment of the ileal-anal pouch: descriptive radiologic analysis with endoscopic and pathologic correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36(4):394–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sahi KS, Lee KS, Moss A, Yee E, Allard F, Brook A, Mortele KJ (2015) MR enterography of the ileoanal pouch: descriptive radiologic analysis with endoscopic and pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205(5):W478–W484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nadgir RN, Soto JA, Dendrinos K, Lucey BC, Becker JM, Farraye FA (2006) MRI of complicated pouchitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187(4):W386–W391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tang L, Cai H, Moore L, Shen B (2010) Evaluation of endoscopic and imaging modalities in the diagnosis of structural disorders of the ileal pouch. Inflamm Bowel Dis 16(9):1526–1531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sunde ML, Øresland T, Engebreth Færden A (2015) Correlation between pouch function and sexual function in patients with IPAA. Scand J Gastroenterol 51(3):295–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sunde ML, Øresland T, Faerden AE (2016) Restorative proctocolectomy with two different pouch designs: few complications with good function. Color Dis 19:363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Øresland T, Fasth S, Nordgren S, Hultén L (1989) The clinical and functional outcome in restorative proctocolectomy. Int J Color Dis 4:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sunde ML, Ricanek P, Øresland T, Jahnsen J, Naimy N, Færden AE Determinants of optimal bowel function in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis—physiological differences contributing to pouch function. Scand J Gastroenterol.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2017.1390601
  30. 30.
    Sandborn WJ, Tremaine WJ, Batts KP, Pemberton JH, Phillips SF (1994) Pouchitis after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a pouchitis disease activity index. Mayo Clin Proc 69:409–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hahnloser D, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG, Larson DR, Crownhart BS, Dozois RR (2004) The effect of ageing on function and quality of life in ileal pouch patients. A single cohort experience of 409 patients with chronic ulceratice colitis. Ann Surg 240:615–240PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stover MD, Summers HD, Ghanayem AJ, Wilber JH (2006) Three-dimensional analysis of pelvic volume in an unstable pelvic fracture. J Trauma 61(4):905–908CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jones EL, Jones TS, Paniccia A, Merkow JS, Wells DM, Pearlman NW, McCarter MD (2014) Smaller pelvic volume is associated with postoperative infection after pelvic salvage surgery for recurrent malignancy. Am J Surg 208(6):1016–1022CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ferko A, Maly O, Orhalmi J, Dolejs J (2016) CT/MRI pelvimetry as a useful tool when selecting patients with rectal cancer for transanal total mesorectal excision. Surg Endosc 30(3):1164–1171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Utsunomiya J, Iwama T, Imajo M, Matsuo S, Sawai S, Yaegashi K, Hirayama R (1980) Total colectomy, mucosal proctectomy, and ileoanal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 23:459–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    NG K (1969) Intra-abdominal “reservoir” in patients with permanent ileostomy. Arch Surg 99:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Williams G, Bussey H, Morson B (1985) Inflammatory “Cap” polyps of the large intestine. Br J Surg 72:133Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Quinn KP, Tse CS, Lightner AL, Pendegraft RS, Enders FT, Raffals LE (2017) Nonrelaxing pelvic floor dysfunction is an underestimated complication of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 01Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stellingwerf ME, Maeda Y, Patel U, Vaizey CJ, Warusavitarne J, Bemelman WA, Clark SK (2016) The role of the defaecating pouchogram in the assessment of evacuation difficulty after restorative proctocolectomy and pouch-anal anastomosis. Color Dis 18(8):O292–O300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    de Silva H, de Angelis C, Soper N, Kettlewell M, Mortensen NJ, Jewell D (1991) Clinical and functional outcome after restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 78:1039–1044CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Woolfson K, McLeod RS, Walfisch S, Yip K, Cohen Z (1991) Pelvic pouch emptying scan: an evaluation of scintigraphic assessment of the neorectum. Int J Color Dis 6:29–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    O’Connell PR, Kelly KA, Brown ML (1986) Scintigraphic assessment of neorectal motor function. J Nucl Med 27:460–464PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kjaer MD, Simonsen JA, Hvidsten S, Kjeldsen J, Gerke O, Qvist N (2015) Scintigraphic small intestinal transit time and defaecography in patients with J-pouch. Diagnostics (Basel) 5(4):399–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Colorectal SurgeryAkershus University HospitalLørenskogNorway
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyAkershus University HospitalLørenskogNorway
  3. 3.Division of Surgical Sciences, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  4. 4.Division of Medicine and Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations