Faculty Bibliography

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:Ileal pouch anal anastomosis is a complex procedure associated with significant morbidity, with several complications after ileal pouch anal anastomosis surgery leading to pouch failure. The aim of the study is to evaluate the heterogeneity surrounding the technique of ileoanal J-pouch surgery by assessing the safety and quality of published online peer-reviewed surgical videos. METHODS:Ileal pouch anal anastomosis videos published on peer-reviewed surgical journals and video channels were edited and anonymized to demonstrate specific steps of the surgical procedure: mobilization and division of the rectum, formation of the ileoanal J-pouch reservoir, anastomosis, and lengthening techniques. The anonymized videos were presented to a group of reviewers with expertise in ileal pouch anal anastomosis blinded to the names and affiliations of the surgeons performing the procedure. Primary outcome was the rate of interobserver variability in the assessment of specific technical steps of the ileal pouch anal anastomosis surgery procedure. Secondary outcome was the appropriateness of the use of surgical videos review as an assessment tool for ileal pouch anal anastomosis surgery, measured as rate of reviewers being unable to answer for poor video quality. RESULTS:In total, 29 video fragments were distributed, and 13 assessors completed a 60-item survey, organized in 7 major domains. The survey completion rate was 93.4%. Out of a total 729 answers, in 23 (3.2%) the reviewers indicated they were unable to comment due to poor video image, and in 48 (6.5%) were unable to comment due to the particular step not being shown in the procedure. The proportion of assessors rating rectal mobilization technically appropriate ranged from 30.7% to 92.3% and from 7.7% to 69.2% for safety. The level of rectal division was considered appropriate in 0 to 53.8% of the videos, whereas the stapling technique used for rectal division was appropriate in 0 to 70% of the videos. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our study assessed published peer-reviewed videos on ileal pouch anal anastomosis surgery and reported heterogeneity in the safety of the demonstrated techniques. Blind assessment of published peer-reviewed ileal pouch anal anastomosis videos reported a high rate of unsafe or inappropriate technique for rectal mobilization and transection in the reviewed videos, with fair interobserver agreement among reviewers. There is a need for consensus on what is considered safe and appropriate in ileal pouch anal anastomosis surgery. Peer review of ileal pouch anal anastomosis surgery videos could facilitate training and accreditation in this complex procedure.

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.

BACKGROUND:Ulcerative colitis is associated with a higher risk for developing colorectal cancer. It is unknown whether this translates into a worse prognosis when malignancy occurs. The goal of this study was to compare long-term outcomes between patients with ulcerative colitis-associated colorectal cancer and sporadic colorectal cancer. METHODS:All patients who underwent surgery with curative intent for colorectal cancer in Denmark between January 2004 and June 2016 were included in the study. Patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were identified and matched 1:5 with patients with sporadic colorectal cancer using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was disease-free survival, with recurrence-free survival and all-cause mortality as secondary outcomes. In order to relate the results of the study to the existing literature, a systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS:A total of 1332 patients, 222 with ulcerative colitis and 1110 with sporadic colorectal cancer were included in the study. Disease-free survival was similar between the two groups with a hazards ratio (HR) 1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.32], as was recurrence-free survival HR 1.14 (95% CI 0.86-1.53) and all-cause mortality HR 1.15 (95% CI 0.89-1.48). The results of the systematic review identified seven other relevant studies. Meta-analysis showed a HR 1.67 (95% CI 0.61-4.56) for recurrence-free survival and HR 1.21 (95% CI 0.93-1.56) for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS:There were no significant differences in long-term outcomes between ulcerative colitis-associated and sporadic colorectal cancer. However, the current results are limited by possible residual confounding and the meta-analysis by heterogeneity in confounding adjustment.

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: 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

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

Background Dual-energy CT enterography (DECTE) has been shown to be useful in characterizing Crohn disease activity compared with clinical markers of inflammation but, to the knowledge of the authors, comparison has not been made with histopathologic specimens. Purpose To compare mucosal iodine density obtained at DECTE from Crohn disease-affected bowel with histopathologic specimens from surgically resected ileocolectomy bowel segments or terminal ileum colonoscopic biopsies in the same patients. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective study. Bowel segments in adults with Crohn disease who underwent DECTE from January 2017 to April 2019 within 90 days of ileocolectomy or colonoscopy were retrospectively evaluated with prototype software allowing the semiautomatic determination of inner hyperdense bowel wall (mucosal) mean iodine density, normalized to the aorta. Mean normalized iodine density and clinical activity indexes (Crohn Disease Activity Index [CDAI] and Harvey-Bradshaw Index [HBI]) were compared with histologic active inflammation grades by using two-tailed t tests. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated for mean normalized iodine density, CDAI, and HBI to determine sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. A P value less than .05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Results The following 16 patients were evaluated (mean age, 41 years ± 14 [standard deviation]): 10 patients (five men, five women; mean age, 41 years ± 15) with 19 surgical resection specimens and six patients with terminal ileum colonoscopic mucosal biopsies (four men, two women; mean age, 43 years ± 14). Mean normalized iodine density was 16.5% ± 5.7 for bowel segments with no active inflammation (n = 8) and 34.7% ± 9.7 for segments with any active inflammation (n = 17; P < .001). A 20% mean normalized iodine density threshold had sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 17 of 17 (100%; 95% CI: 80.5, 100), six of eight (75%; 95% CI: 35, 97), and 23 of 25 (92%; 95% CI: 74, 99), respectively, for active inflammation. Clinical indexes were similar for patients with and without active inflammation at histopathologic analysis (CDAI score, 261 vs 251, respectively [P = .77]; HBI score, 7.8 vs 6.4, respectively [P = .36]). Conclusion Iodine density from dual-energy CT enterography may be used as a radiologic marker of Crohn disease activity as correlated with histopathologic analysis. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Ohliger in this issue.

Pelvic sepsis is a dreadful complication after ileal pouch creation. It is mostly treated conservatively, and the ileal pouch can be salvaged if sepsis is detected and treated in a timely manner. Even under the best circumstances, pelvic sepsis is often associated with poor functional outcomes. If pelvic sepsis becomes chronic, it could lead to pouch failure. Redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a viable option in the setting of chronic pelvic sepsis to preserve gastrointestinal continuity in motivated patients. It is associated with similar surgical morbidity, acceptable functional outcomes, and good quality of life. Patients should be involved in the decision-making process after ileal pouch failure. In the setting of ileal pouch failure, surgeons with limited experience may not be comfortable offering patients redo IPAA. Redo IPAA requires subspecialization and patients with ileal pouch failure should be treated at specialized high-volume centers.