Skip to main content
Log in

Laparoscopic Restorative Proctocolectomy with Ileal S-Pouch

  • Original Contribution
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

Purpose

Restorative proctocolectomy has revolutionized the surgical management of ulcerative colitis and familial polyposis syndromes. Though now evolved to include laparoscopy, this approach has not included alternative pouch designs such as ileal S-pouch reconstruction. This comparative analysis evaluated the combination of laparoscopic-assisted total proctocolectomy with an ileal S-pouch design.

Methods

One hundred fifty-six (65 laparoscopic-assisted) total proctocolectomy and ileal S-pouch-anal anastomosis procedures performed between 2003 to 2007 were identified from a prospective surgical database. Operative time, length of incision, length of hospital stay, complications, and return of bowel function were examined. A cost analysis including preoperative through postoperative hospital stay and operating room and postanesthesia care unit costs was performed.

Results

The laparoscopic-assisted total proctocolectomy and ileal S-pouch-anal anastomosis procedures were performed for ulcerative colitis in 60 cases and familial adenomatous polyposis in the remaining 5 patients. Four conversions to open technique occurred (6 percent). Comparing laparoscopic and open procedures, the laparoscopic approach took longer to perform than the open technique (mean 451 minutes vs. 347 minutes open; P < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was 6.3 days in the laparoscopic group vs. 8.2 days in the open group (P < 0.001). A detailed cost analysis revealed similar overall costs between the laparoscopic ($18,700) and open approaches ($18,500).

Conclusion

Use of a laparoscopic total proctocolectomy with ileal S-pouch-anal anastomosis reconstruction minimizes incision size and shortens hospital stay. At a teaching academic institution, the laparoscopic approach requires longer operative times yet a negligible cost disadvantage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Parks AG, Nicholls RJ. Proctocolectomy without ileostomy for ulcerative colitis. BMJ 1978;2:85–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Utsunomiya J, Iwama T, Imajo M, et al. Total colectomy, mucosal proctectomy, and ileoanal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 1980;23:459–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gill TS, Karantana A, Rees J, Pandey S, Dixon AR. Laparoscopic proctocolectomy with restorative ileal-anal pouch. Colorectal Dis 2004;6:458–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schmitt SL, Cohen SM, Wexner SD, Nogueras JJ, Jagelman DG. Does laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch anal anastomosis reduce the length of hospitalization? Int J Colorectal Dis 1994;9:134–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ky AJ, Sonoda T, Milsom JW. One-stage laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: an alternative to the conventional approach? Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45:207–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marcello PW, Milsom JW, Wong SK, et al. Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: case-matched comparative study with open restorative proctocolectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43:604–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hashimoto A, Funayama Y, Naito H, et al. Laparoscope-assisted versus conventional restorative proctocolectomy with rectal mucosectomy. Surg Today 2001;31:210–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown SR, Eu KW, Seow-Choen F. Consecutive series of laparoscopic-assisted vs. minilaparotomy restorative proctocolectomies. Dis Colon Rectum 2001;44:397–400.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rivadeneira DE, Marcello PW, Roberts PL, et al. Benefits of hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: a comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47:1371–6.

    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;240:984–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kienle P, Z’graggen K, Schmidt J, Benner A, Weitz J, Buchler MW. Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 2005;92:88–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McNevin MS, Bax T, MacFarlane M, et al. Outcomes of a laparoscopic approach for total abdominal colectomy and proctocolectomy. Am J Surg 2006;191:673–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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;243:667–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lopez-Rosales F, Gonzalez-Contreras Q, Muro LJ, et al. Laparoscopic total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: initial experience in Mexico. Surg Endosc 2007;21:2304–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Agha A, Moser C, Iesalnieks I, Piso P, Schlitt HJ. Combination of hand-assisted and laparoscopic proctocolectomy (HALP): technical aspects, learning curve and early postoperative results. Surg Endosc 2008;22:1547–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tuckson WB, Fazio VW. Functional comparison between double and triple ileal loop pouches. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:17–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McHugh SM, Diamant NE, McLeod R, Cohen Z. S-pouches vs. J-pouches A. comparison of functional outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 1987;30:671–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Guller U, Jain N, Hervey S, Purves H, Pietrobon R. Laparoscopic vs. open colectomy: outcomes comparison based on large nationwide databases. Arch Surg 2003;138:1179–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shore G, Gonzalez QH, Bondora A, Vickers SM. Laparoscopic vs. conventional ileocolectomy for primary Crohn disease. Arch Surg 2003;138:76–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen HH, Wexner SD, Iroatulam AJ, et al. Laparoscopic colectomy compares favorably with colectomy by laparotomy for reduction of postoperative ileus. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43:61–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Noel JK, Fahrbach K, Estok R, et al. Minimally invasive colorectal resection outcomes: short-term comparison with open procedures. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204:291–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Harms BA, Pahl AC, Starling JR. Comparison of clinical and compliance characteristics between S and W ileal reservoirs. Am J Surg 1990;159:34–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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;44:1800–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Glen Leverson, Ph.D. for his statistical contributions to this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles P. Heise M.D..

About this article

Cite this article

Heise, C.P., Kennedy, G., Foley, E.F. et al. Laparoscopic Restorative Proctocolectomy with Ileal S-Pouch. Dis Colon Rectum 51, 1790–1794 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-008-9408-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-008-9408-z

Key words

Navigation