Restorative proctocolectomy is now widely accepted as the optimum treatment for ulcerative colitis. However, despite improved surgical techniques and increasing experience the functional outcome is not always good. The four most commonly used determinants of clinical function are stool frequency, continence, ability to defaecate spontaneously and the ability to defer defaecation. However, all these parameters of pouch function are entirely subjective and, depending on their expectations, a good to excellent result for one patient may be a fair or even poor result to another. As a result clinicians have included physiological measurements to explain the variations in pouch function. These measurements have included anal manometry, pouch capacity, pouch compliance, motility and pouch scintigraphy. Pouch ecology has also been studied and attempts have been made to correlate pouch ecology with function.
KeywordsCatheter Fermentation Bromide Barium Dehydration
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Chaussade S, Michopoulos S, Hautefeuille M, Valleur P, Hautefeuille P, Guerre J, Couturier D. Clinical and physiological study of anal sphincter and ileal J pouch before perileostomy closure and 6–12 months after closure of loop ileostomy. Dig Dis Sci 36: 161–167Google Scholar
- Gorbach SL, Nakas L, Weinstein L (1976) Studies of intestinal microflora. IV. The microflora of ileostomy effluent: a unique microbial ecology. Gastroenterology 53: 874–877Google Scholar
- Hentges DJ (1983) Role of intestinal microflora in host defences against infection. In: Hentges DJ (ed) Human intestinal microflora in health and disease. Academic Press, New York, pp 311–331Google Scholar
- Hillard AE, Mann FA, Becker JM, Nelson JA. The ileoanal J pouch: radiographic evaluation. Radiology 155: 591–594Google Scholar
- Holdsworth JP, Johnston D (1988b) Use of the end-to-end anastomosis without mucosal stripping diminishes morbidity and time in hospital after restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 75: 1232Google Scholar
- Johnston D, Holdsworth PJ, Nasmyth DG et al. (1987) Preservation of the entire anal canal in conservative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis: a pilot study comparing end-to-end ileoanal without mucosal resection with mucosal proctectomy and endo-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 74: 940–944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kumar D, Waldron D, Nicholls RJ, Williams NS (1989) Motor functon of the ileal reservoir following restorative proctocolectomy. Gastroenterology 96: A276Google Scholar
- Levitt MD, Kamm MA, Nicholls RJ (1991) Pouch dynamics — a simple test of ileoanal pouch evacuation. 6: 158–160Google Scholar
- Marzouk D, Williams NS, Hallan RI (1989) Function after stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Br J Surg 76: A627Google Scholar
- Pescatori M, Manhire A, Bartram CI Evacuation pouchography in the evaluation of ileoanal reservoir function. Dis Colon Rectum 26: 365–368Google Scholar
- Rothenberger DA, Wong WD, Buls JG, Goldberg SM (1985) In: Dozois RR (ed) Alternatives to conventional ileostomy. Yearbook Medical, Chicago, pp 345–362Google Scholar
- Sagar PM, Holdsworth PJ, Godwin GR, Quirke P, Smith AN, Johnstone D (1992) Comparison of triplicated (S) and quadruplicated (W) pelvic ileal reservoirs: studies on manovolumetry, fecal bacteriology, fecal volatile fatty acids, mucosal morphology, and function results. Gastroenterology 102: 520–528PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Thayer ML, Madoff RD, Jacobs DM, Bubrick MP (1990) Comparative intrinsic and extrinsic compliance characteristics of S, J and W ileoanal pouches. Dis Colon Rectum 33: 86Google Scholar