Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcome of primary and secondary ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and ileorectal anastomosis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

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

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to present Swedish experiences of the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis from the introduction in 1984. The study also compared the surgical and functional outcome of different anal continence preserving procedures: ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery, ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery after colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis, and ileorectal anastomosis alone. METHODS: The material comprises all 120 patients with familial adenomatous polyposis reported to the Swedish Polyposis Registry who had undergone prophylactic colorectal surgery, including those operated on because of colorectal cancer from 1984 until the end of 1996. Anal continence preserving surgery was performed on 102 patients: 20 had ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery at a median age of 24.5 years, 39 had ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery at a median age of 34 years, and 43 had ileorectal anastomosis alone, at a median age of 26 years, because 6 of the initially ileorectal anastomosis-operated patients were converted to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery. Surgical outcome was assessed on the basis of hospital records. A questionnaire was used to evaluate the functional outcome. Fisher's exact probability test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Complications occurred in 51 percent of the patients after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: 40 percent after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery and 56 percent after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery. When the previous ileorectal anastomosis was taken into account 67 percent of the patients suffered complications which was significantly more compared with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery. After ileorectal anastomosis, 26 percent had complications which was significantly less compared with all other procedures but ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery. No cancer occurred after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, either in the ileal pouch or in retained rectal mucosa, but two of the patients who had an ileorectal anastomosis developed rectal cancer. One pouch excision was performed compared with ten rectal excisions. Functional outcome did not differ between ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery. However, ileorectal anastomosis-operated patients had significantly better bowel function with regard to nighttime stool frequency, continence and perianal soreness. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that major advantages of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis are the low excision rate and, so far, no cancer in the ileal pouch. Moreover, the surgical outcome of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery is not significantly different from that of ileorectal anastomosis. However, the good surgical and functional outcome of ileorectal anastomosis, despite the long-range prognosis including rectal cancer and excision risks, has to be taken into consideration when selecting patients with familial adenomatous polyposis for primary surgery.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bülow S. Familial adenomatous polyposis. Dan Med Bull 1987;34:1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berk T, Cohen Z, Cullen JB. Familial polyposis and the role of the preventive registry. Can Med Assoc J 1981;124:1427–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jagelman DG. Choice of operation for familial adenomatous polyposis. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1986;75:71–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bess MA, Adson MA, Elveback LR, Moertel CG. Rectal cancer following colectomy for polyposis. Arch Surg 1980;115:460–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nudgent KP, Phillips RK. Rectal cancer risk in older patients with familial adenomatous polyposis and an ileorectal anastomosis: a cause for concern. Br J Surg 1992;79:1204–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. De Cosse JJ, Bülow S, Neale K,et al. Rectal cancer risk in patients treated for familial adenomatous polyposis. Br J Surg 1992;79:1372–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Iwama T, Mishima Y. Factors affecting the risk of rectal cancer following rectum-preserving surgery in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:1024–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Matsumoto T, Iida M, Mibu R, Fujishima M. Risk of cancer development in the rectal remnant of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis/Gardner's syndrome. Hepatogastroenterology 1995;42:765–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heiskanen J, Järvinen HJ. Fate of the rectal stump after colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis for familial adenomatous polyposis. Int J Colorectal Dis 1997;12:9–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Björk J, Åkerbrant H, Iselius L, Hultcrantz R. Risk factors for rectal cancer morbidity and mortality in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis after colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum (in press).

  11. Björk J, Åkerbrant H, Iselius L, Alm T, Hultcrantz R. Epidemiology of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) in Sweden: changes over time and differences in phenotype between males and females. Scand J Gastroenterol 1999;34:1230–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Öresland T, Fasth S, Nordgren S, Hultén L. The clinical and functional outcome after restorative proctocolectomy. A prospective study of 100 patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 1989;4:50–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Poppen B, Svenberg T, Bark T,et al. Colectomy-proctocolectomucosectomy with S-pouch. Operative procedures, complications, and functional outcome in 69 consecutive patients. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:40–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Madden MV, Neale KF, Nicholls RJ,et al. Comparison of morbidity and function after colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis or restorative proctocolectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis. Br J Surg 1991;78:789–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Penna C, Kartheuser A, Parc R,et al. Secondary proctectomy and ileal-anal anastomosis after ileorectal anastomosis for familial adenomatous polyposis. Br J Surg 1993;80:1621–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kartheuser AH, Parc R, Penna CP,et al. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as the first choice operation in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: a ten- year experience. Surgery 1996;119:615–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nyam DC, Brillant PT, Dozois RR, Kelly KA, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for familial adenomatous polyposis. Ann Surg 1997;226:514–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ambroze Jr WL, Orangio GR, Lucas G. Surgical options for familial adenomatous polyposis. Semin Surg Oncol 1995;11:423–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tonelli F, Valanzano R, Monaci I, Mazzoni P, Anastasi A, Ficari F. Restorative proctocolectomy or rectum-preserving surgery in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: results of a prospective study. World J Surg 1997;21:653–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cohen Z, McLeod RS, Stephen W, Stern MS, O'Connor B, Reznick R. Continuing evolution of the pelvic pouch procedure. Ann Surg 1992;216:506–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gozzetti G, Poggioli G, Marchetti F,et al. Functional outcome in handsewn versus stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Am J Surg 1994;168:325–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Soravia C, Klein L, Berk T, O'Connor BI, Cohen Z, McLeod RS. Comparison of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and ileorectal anastomosis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42:1028–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sjögren B, Poppen B. Sexual life in women after colectomy- proctocolectomy with S-pouch. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1995;74:51–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bertario L, Presciuttini S, Sala P, Rossetti C, Pietroiusti M. Cause of death and postsurgical survival in familial adenomatous polyposis: results from the Italian registry. Semin Surg Oncol 1994;10:225–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bertoni G, Sassatelli R, Nigrisoli E,et al. First observation of microadenomas in the ileal mucosa of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis and colectomies. Gastroenterology 1995;109:374–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tytgat GN, Gopinath N. Recurrent polyps in ileo-anal pouch or rectum in familial adenomatous polyposis. Eur J Cancer 1995;31A:1154–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Church JM, Oakley JR, Wu JS. Pouch polyposis after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for familial adenomatous polyposis: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:584–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Malassagne B, Penna C, Parc R. Adenomatous polyps in the anal transitional zone after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for familial polyposis: treatment by transanal mucosectomy and ileal pouch advancement. Br J Surg 1995;82:1634.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bassuini MM, Billings PJ. Carcinoma in an ileoanal pouch after restorative proctocolectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis. Br J Surg 1996;83:506.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Von Herbay A, Stern J, Herfarth C. Pouch-anal cancer after restorative proctocolectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis. Am J Surg 1996;20:995–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Giebel GD, Sabiers H. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and polyposis coli: is the risk of carcinoma formation conclusively averted? Eur J Surg Oncol 1996;22:372–6.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Slors JF, Ponson AE, Taat CW, Bosma A. Risk of residual rectal mucosa after proctocolectomy and ileal pouchanal reconstruction with the double-stapling technique: postoperative endoscopic follow-up study. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:207–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sagar PM, Pemberton JH. Operations for familial adenomatous polyposis. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1996;5:675–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ziv Y, Church JM, Oakley JR, McGannon E, Fazio VW. Surgery for the teenager with familial adenomatous polyposis: ileo-rectal anastomosis or restorative proctocolectomy? Int J Colorectal Dis 1995;10:6–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hawk E, Lubet R, Limburg P. Chemoprevention in hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes. Cancer 1999;86:1731–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Steinbach G, Lynch P, Phillips R,et al. The effect of celecoxib, a cycloxygenase-2 inhibitor, in familial adenomatous polyposis. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1946–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Olsen K, Joelsson A, Laurberg S, Öresland T. Fertility after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in women with ulcerative colitis. Br J Surg 1999;86:493–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Church JM. The ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in challenging patients: stretching the limits. Aust N Z J Surg 1995;65:104–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Reissman P, Teoh T-A, Weiss EG, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD. Functional outcome of the double stapled ileoanal reservoir in patients more than 60 years of age. Am Surg 1996;62:178–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm

    L. Iselius Ph.D. & T. Svenberg Ph.D.

  2. Colorectal Unit, Sahlgrenska Hospital, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

    T. Öresland Ph.D.

  3. Department of Surgery, University Hospital, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden

    L. Påhlman Ph.D.

  4. The Swedish Polyposis Registry, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Karolinska Hospital, SE-171 76, Stockholm, Sweden

    J. Björk M.D., H. Åkerbrant R.N. & R. Hultcrantz Ph.D.

Authors
  1. J. Björk M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Åkerbrant R.N.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Iselius Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. Svenberg Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T. Öresland Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. L. Påhlman Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R. Hultcrantz Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Parts of the functional outcome part of the study were presented at the Leeds Castle Polyposis Group meeting in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, June 4 to 7, 1997.

Supported by the Cancer Society in Stockholm and the Karolinska Institute.

About this article

Cite this article

Björk, J., Åkerbrant, H., Iselius, L. et al. Outcome of primary and secondary ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and ileorectal anastomosis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Dis Colon Rectum 44, 984–992 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02235487

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02235487

Key words

Search

Navigation