Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The data on management and outcomes of pelvic sepsis after re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis are scarce. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study is to report our management algorithm of pelvic sepsis in the setting of re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis, and compare functional outcomes and quality of life after successful management of pelvic sepsis with a no-sepsis control group. DESIGN/METHODS:This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS/METHODS:This investigation is based on a single-academic practice group experience on re-do IPAA. PATIENTS/METHODS:Patients who underwent re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ileal pouch failure between 09/2016 - 09/2020 were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Management of the pelvic sepsis was reported. Functional outcomes, restrictions and quality of life scores were compared between sepsis and no sepsis groups. RESULTS:One-hundred and ten patients were included to our study, of whom 25 (22.7) developed pelvic sepsis. Twenty-three patients presented with pelvic sepsis before ileostomy closure and 2 patients presented with pelvic sepsis after ileostomy closure. There were 6 pouch failures in the study period due to pelvic sepsis. Our management was successful in 79% of the patients with median follow-up of 26 months. Treatments included included IR abscess drainage (n=7), IV antibiotics alone (n=5), IR drainage and mushroom catheter placement (n=1), mushroom catheter placement (n=1), and endoluminal vacuum assisted closure (n=1). Average number of bowel movements, urgency, incontinence, pad use, seepage between were comparable between pelvic sepsis and no pelvic sepsis groups (p>0.05). Lifestyle alterations, Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores and happiness with the results of the surgery were similar (p>0.05). LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:This study is limited by its low study power and limited follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS:Pelvic sepsis is common after re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis and management varies according to the location and size of the abscess/sinus. If detected early, our management strategy was associated with high pouch salvage rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B823.

AIM/OBJECTIVE:Approximately 20-40% of the patients with re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) experience pouch failure. Salvage surgery can be attempted in this patient group with severe aversion to permanent ileostomy. The literature regarding secondary IPAA revision after re-do IPAA failure is scarce. METHODS:All patients who underwent a secondary IPAA revision after re-do IPAA failure between 09/2016 - 07/2021 in a single center were included. Short- and long-term outcomes and quality of life in this patient group were reported. RESULTS:Ten patients who had secondary IPAA revision for re-do IPAA failure were included. All patients had ulcerative colitis. Nine of these patients had pelvic sepsis and one patient had a mechanical issue. Mucosectomy and handsewn anastomosis was performed in 9 patients. The existing pouch was salvaged in 6 patients and 4 patients had pouch excision and re-creation. Two patients had postoperative pelvic sepsis. Pouch retention rate was 78% in median 28 months. None of the patients had short gut syndrome. The procedure was associated with good quality of life (median CGQL=0.8). All patients would undergo the same surgery if needed. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Secondary IPAA revision after a failed re-do IPAA can be an option in patients with severe aversion to permanent ileostomy if re-do IPAA fails and it is associated with good outcomes. This patient group should be carefully evaluated and referred to specialized centers if required.

BACKGROUND:Salvage of the existing ileal pouch is favored during re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis if the pouch is not damaged after pelvic dissection and there are no other mechanical reasons that may necessitate construction of a new pouch. Excision of the existing pouch may be associated with some concerns for short-bowel syndrome and poor functional outcomes. This study aimed to report indications and compare functional and quality of life outcomes of new pouch creation versus salvage of the existing pouch during re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis. METHODS:Patients who underwent re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis between September 2016 and June 2020 were included. The reasons for pouch excision and new pouch creation were reported. Perioperative, functional outcomes and quality of life were compared between patients who had creation of a new pouch versus salvage of existing pouch. RESULTS:A total of 105 patients with re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis (new pouch, n = 63) were included. Most common indications for a new pouch creation were chronic pelvic infection that compromised the integrity and viability of the existing pouch (n = 32) and small pouch (n = 21). No patient developed short-bowel syndrome. The number of bowel movements, daily restrictions and Cleveland Global Quality of Life score scores were similar between 2 groups. Day-time seepage, day-time and night-time pad usage were more common after new pouch creation. Two-year pouch survival rates were comparable (new pouch: 92% versus existing pouch: 85%, P = .31). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:New pouch creation can be safely performed at the time of re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis. It provides acceptable functional and quality of life outcomes if existing pouch salvage is not feasible.

Introduction: Strictures are reported in around 35%-40% of patients after primary ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA). So far, there are no reports focusing on strictures after re-do IPAA. In our study, we evaluated the incidence, management, long-term functional outcomes, and quality of life scores of anastomotic strictures after re-do IPAA.
Method(s): Patients undergoing redo IPAA between 9/2016 and 9/2020 were included. Incidence and management strategy of re-do IPAA strictures were evaluated. Functional outcomes, lifestyle alterations, and quality of life scores were compared between stricture vs no-stricture groups.
Result(s): Ninety patients were included in the analysis after ileostomy closure. Twenty-two patients developed symptomatic strictures, all of which were at the pouch-anal anastomosis (first year: 25.3%;2 years: 31.8%) In 5 (23%) patients, the strictures were mild, and digital dilation was easily performed. Seventeen (77%) patients had tight strictures dilated with pilling dilators. Median number of dilations required to achieve permanent symptomatic relief was 1. None of the patients required pouch excision due to strictures. Incidence of pouch-anal anastomotic stricture was higher in the re-do IPAA compared with the primary IPAA. Lifestyle alterations were similar between the stricture and no stricture groups. Cleveland Global Quality of Life score was lower in patients with strictures. Strictures were associated with decreased patient happiness with their IPAA (p=0.005) (Table).
Conclusion(s): Stricture development after re-do IPAAs are common and have a higher incidence than primary IPAA, but it can be managed aggressively with a subsequent high pouch retention rate. Lower patient happiness after surgery and decreased QOL are associated with stricture development after re-do IPAAs. [Formula presented]
Copyright

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of various factors on 30-day postoperative morbidity in patients with disseminated cancer who underwent appendectomy.
Method(s): Patients with disseminated cancer who underwent appendectomy, between 2016 and 2018, were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database by using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Demographics, perioperative, and operative factors were assessed and compared between 2 groups classified according to the presence or absence of postoperative complications.
Result(s): A total of 354 patients met the inclusion criteria [female n=186 (52%)]. Eight-nine percent of the cases were performed laparoscopically, 46% (n=164) of cases were emergency surgery. Most common postoperative diagnosis was acute appendicitis (n=322, 90%). Operative time (73.9 vs 67.6 minutes) and length of stay (10.6 vs 3.3 days) were longer in patients with morbidity. Eighty-three patients (23.4%) had at least 1 postoperative complication. Most common complication was sepsis/septic shock followed by transfusion-requiring anemia. Patients who developed complications were more often male (p=0.003), dyspneic (p=0.001), with hypoalbuminemia (p=0.002), anemia (0.03), and preoperative diagnosis of sepsis/systemic inflammatory response syndrome (p<0.0001).
Conclusion(s): Morbidity for appendectomy in patients with disseminated cancer is high. Treatment decisions should be individualized based on preoperative comorbidities and disease extent.
Copyright

BACKGROUND:Impact of the type of anastomosis on the outcomes of re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is unknown. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study is to assess the indications, peri-operative and functional outcomes in patients undergoing stapled vs hand-sewn re-do IPAA. DESIGN/METHODS:This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS/METHODS:This investigation is based on a single-academic practice group experience on re-do IPAA. PATIENTS/METHODS:Patients who underwent re-do IPAA for ileal pouch failure between 09/2016 - 05/2020 were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Indications, perioperative, functional outcomes, restrictions and quality of life scores were compared between stapled and hand-sewn groups. RESULTS:A total of 105 patients underwent re-do IPAA for ileal pouch failure of whom 76 (72%) had hand-sewn and 29 (28%) had stapled re-anastomosis. The interval between the index and re-do IPAA was shorter in stapled re-do IPAA [median (IQR), Stapled: 3 years (1-4) vs hand-sewn: 7 years (3-17), p<0.001]. Hand-sewn anastomosis was more commonly used after pelvic sepsis [hand-sewn: n=57 (76%) vs stapled: n=13 (45%), p=0.002]. Overall postoperative morbidity was similar between the two groups [hand-sewn: n=38 (50%) vs stapled: n=16 (55%), p=0.635]. The number of bowel movements, pad use, daily restrictions and CGQL scores were similar between stapled and hand-sewn groups. While day-time seepage was more common after hand-sewn anastomosis [hand-sewn, n=20 (44%) vs stapled, n=3 (14%), p=0.013], night-time seepage was similar in both groups. Pouch survival rates were comparable and 88% vs 92% respectively (p>0.05). LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:This study is limited by its low study power and limited follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS:Patients who had pelvic sepsis after their index IPAA required hand-sewn anastomosis at higher rate than other re-do cases. Although hand-sewn anastomosis is a more complex procedure, it was associated with similar morbidity, functional outcomes and quality of life scores compared to stapled anastomosis for re-do IPAA. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B580.

BACKGROUND:Failed pouches may tend to be managed with only a loop ileostomy in obese patients due to some safety concerns. The effect of obesity on ileal pouch excision outcomes is poorly studied. In our study, we aimed to assess the short-term outcomes after ileal pouch excision in obese patients compared to their nonobese counterparts. METHODS:) groups. RESULTS:= .942]. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Ileal pouch excision can be performed in obese patients with largely similar outcomes compared to their nonobese counterparts although obesity is associated with a higher rate of deep space infection.

BACKGROUND:Modality of index IPAA creation may affect the results after redo IPAA surgery for IPAA failure. To our knowledge, there is no study evaluating the effects of modality of index IPAA creation on redo IPAA outcomes. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes of transabdominal redo IPAA surgery for failed minimally invasive IPAA and open IPAA. DESIGN/METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS/METHODS:This investigation was based on a single-surgeon experience on redo IPAA. PATIENTS/METHODS:Patients undergoing transabdominal redo IPAA for a failed minimally invasive IPAA and open IPAA between September 2007 and September 2017 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Short-term complications and long-term outcomes were compared between 2 groups. RESULTS:A total of 42 patients with failed index minimally invasive IPAA were case matched with 42 failed index open IPAA counterparts. The interval between index IPAA and redo IPAA operations was shorter in patients who had minimally invasive IPAA (median, 28.5 vs 56.0 mo; p = 0.03). A long rectal stump (>2 cm) was more common after minimally invasive IPAA (26% vs 10%; p = 0.046). Redo IPAAs were constructed more commonly with staplers in the laparoscopy group compared with open counterparts (26% vs 10%; p = 0.046), and other intraoperative details were comparable. Although short-term morbidity was similar between 2 groups, abscess formation (7% vs 24%; p = 0.035) was more frequent in patients who had index IPAA with open technique. Functional outcomes were comparable. Redo IPAA survival for failed minimally invasive IPAA and open IPAA was comparable. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:This study was limited by its retrospective, nonrandomized nature and relatively low patient number. CONCLUSIONS:A long rectal cuff after minimally invasive IPAA is a potential and preventable risk factor for failure. Due to its technical and patient-related complexity, handsewn anastomoses in redo IPAA are associated with increased risk of abscess formation. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B252. RESCATE DEL RESERVORIO ILEO-ANAL POR VIA TRANSABDOMINAL EN CASOS DE FUGA ANASTOMÓTICA ENTRE ABORDAGE MINIMAMENTE INVASIVO Y ABORDAJE ABIERTO: ESTUDIO DE EMPAREJAMIENTO DE MUESTRAS Y CASOS: La creación de modalidades e índices de Reservorios Ileo-Anales (RIA) pueden afectar los resultados después de rehacer la cirugía de RIAs por fallas en el reservorio. Hasta donde sabemos, no hay ningún estudio que evalúe los efectos de la modalidad de creación de índices RIA en los resultados para el rescate del reservorio.Este estudio tuvo como objetivo comparar los resultados a corto y largo plazo de la cirugía transabdominal redo RIA en casos de fracaso por via mínimamente invasiva (MI-RIA) o por la vía abierta (A-RIA).Estudio de cohortes tipo retrospectivo.Investigación basada en la experiencia de un solo cirujano en redo del Reservorio Ileo-Anal.Se incluyeron aquellos pacientes sometidos a re-operación transabdominal y re-confección de un RIA por fallas en el MI-RIA y en el A-RIA durante un lapso de tiempo entre septiembre 2007 y septiembre 2017.Las complicaciones a corto plazo y los resultados a largo plazo se compararon entre los dos grupos.Un total de 42 pacientes con índice fallido de MI-RIA fueron emparejados con 42 homólogos con índice fallido de A-RIA. El intervalo entre las operaciones de RIA y redo RIA fué más corto en pacientes que tenían MI-RIA (mediana, 28,5 meses frente a 56 meses, p = 0,03). Un muñón rectal largo (> 2 cm) fue más común después de MI-RIA (26% vs 10%, p = 0.046). Redo RIAs se construyeron más comúnmente con engrampadoras en el grupo Minimalmente Invasivo en comparación con la contraparte abiertas (26% vs 10%, p = 0.046). Aunque la morbilidad a corto plazo fue similar entre los dos grupos, la aparición de abscesos (7% frente a 24%, p = 0.035) fue más frecuente en pacientes que tenían RIA con técnica abierta. Los resultados funcionales fueron comparables. La sobrevida de las redo RIAs para MI-RIA y A-RIA fallidas, también fué comparable.Este estudio estuvo limitado por su naturaleza retrospectiva, no aleatoria y el número relativamente bajo de pacientes.Un muñon rectal largo después de MI-RIA es un factor de riesgo potencial y previsible para el fracaso. Debido a su complejidad técnica y relacionada con el paciente, las anastomosis suturadas a mano en redo RIA están asociadas con un mayor riesgo de formación de abscesos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B252.