Abstract
Background
Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis remains a gold standard in restoring continence in patient with ulcerative colitis. Achieving low transection can be challenging and may require mucosectomy with a hand-sewn anastomosis. Rectal eversion (RE) technique provides a safe and effective alternative for both open and minimally invasive approaches. The purpose of this study is to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent RE when compared to those who underwent conventional trans-abdominal transection.
Materials and methods
This is a retrospective review performed at tertiary care center. Patients undergoing proctectomy and pouch surgery by either standard approach or with RE from November 2004 to January 2017 were evaluated. Demographics, post-operative complications, as well as 1- and 3-year functional outcomes were analyzed.
Results
Total of 176 underwent proctocolectomy with creation of a J pouch and 88 (50%) had the RE technique utilized. The RE group had a higher rate of corticosteroid use at the time of surgery 59.1 versus 39.8% (p = 0.0156), but otherwise groups were statistically similar. 20 cases (26.1%) of RE group and 54 (61%) of conventional group cases were accomplished in minimally invasive fashion. There was no difference in the rates of 30- and 90-day complications. Functional outcomes data were available for up to 78.4% of patient with trans-abdominal approach and 64.7% in RE group. At 1 and 3 years after surgery, there was no difference in the number of bowel movements, fecal incontinence, or nocturnal bowel movements. The rates of returning to ileostomy or pouch revision were the same.
Conclusion
RE technique is safe and effective way to achieve a low transaction in J pouch surgery. The technique provides similar functional outcomes at 1 and 3 years after surgery and can be particularly useful in minimally invasive approaches.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Scoglio D, Ali UA, Fichera A (2014) Surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis: ileorectal vs ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. World J Gastroenterol 20(37):13211–13218. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i37.13211
Nobel T, Khaitov S, Greenstein AJ (2016) Controversies in J pouch surgery for ulcerative colitis: a focus on handsewn versus stapled anastomosis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 22(9):2302–2309. https://doi.org/10.1097/MIB.0000000000000876
Holder-Murray J, Marsicovetere P, Holubar SD (2015) Minimally invasive surgery for inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 21(6):1443–1458. https://doi.org/10.1097/MIB.0000000000000316
Shrestha B (2016) Minimally invasive surgery for inflammatory bowel disease: current perspectives. World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther 7(2):214–216. https://doi.org/10.4292/wjgpt.v7.i2.214
Poylin V, Mowschenson P, Nagle D, Cataldo T (2017) Rectal eversion technique. Dis Colon Rectum 60(12):1329–1331. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000932
Dignan RD, Kwa JA, Odom TA (1999) Stapler-facilitated rectal eversion. Dis Colon Rectum 42(11):1472–1474. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02235050
Zhuo C, Liang L, Ying M et al (2015) Laparoscopic low anterior resection and eversion technique combined with a nondog ear anastomosis for mid- and distal rectal neoplasms. Medicine (Baltimore). 94(50):e2285. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000002285
de Lacy FB, Keller DS, Martin-Perez B, Emile SH, Chand M, Spinelli A, Lacy AM (2019) The current state of the transanal approach to the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Surg Endosc 33(5):1368–1375
Zaghiyan K, Warusavitarne J, Spinelli A, Chandrasinghe P, Di Candido F, Fleshner P (2018) Technical variations and feasibility of transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and inflammatory bowel disease unclassified across continents. Tech Coloproctol 22(11):867–873
Mege D, Hain E, Lakkis Z, Maggiori L, Prost À la Denise J, Panis Y (2018) Is trans-anal total mesorectal excision really safe and better than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with a perineal approach first in patients with low rectal cancer? A learning curve with case-matched study in 68 patients. Colorectal Dis 20(6):0143–0151
Williamson MER, Lewis WG, Miller AS, Sagar PM, Holdsworth PJ, Johnston D (1995) Clinical and physiological evaluation of anorectal eversion during restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 82(10):1391–1394. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800821032
Miller AS, Lewis WG, Williamson MER, Sagar PM, Holdsworth PJ, Johnston D (1996) Does eversion of the anorectum during restorative proctocolectomy influence functional outcome? Dis Colon Rectum 39(5):489–493
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
VYP—Design, analysis, drafting, revising, final approval and agreement to be accountable, JC—Acquisition of data, analysis, drafting, revising, final approval and agreement to be accountable, PM—Design, revising, final approval and agreement to be accountable, TEC—Conception, drafting, revising, final approval and agreement to be accountable
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Jose Cataneo, Peter Mowschenson, Thomas Cataldo, and Vitaliy Poylin have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cataneo, J., Mowschenson, P., Cataldo, T.E. et al. Rectal eversion: safe and effective way to achieve low transaction in minimally invasive Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery, short- and long-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 34, 1290–1293 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06896-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06896-7