Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether stapler size used at ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) influences outcomes. METHODS: Data of patients undergoing stapled IPAA (1983-2007) were obtained. Differences between groups A (stapler size 28-29 mm) and B (31-33 mm) for pre- and perioperative factors, stricture, leak, quality of life (QOL), and function were compared. Associations between stapler size and stricture or leak were assessed with a multivariable Cox model. RESULTS: Groups A (n = 1,221) and B (n = 899) had comparable age, diagnosis, body mass index (BMI), and albumin level. Group B had more males (P < .001) but fewer patients with ileostomy (P < .001). There was no significant difference in rates of leak (4.5% vs 6.2%, P = .08) or stricture (1.9% vs 2.7%, P = .1) for groups A and B. On multivariate analysis, female gender was associated with stricture, while greater BMI and male gender were associated with leak. Group A had greater urgency at 1 year and nighttime pad use at 15 years. The other determinants of function and QOL were similar. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant association between the size of stapler used at IPAA and long-term complications.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether downstaging impacts prognosis in patients with cII versus cIII rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified from our colorectal cancer database 295 patients with primary cII and cIII rectal cancer staged by CT and ERUS/MRI who received 5-FU-based chemoradiation followed by R0 surgery after a median interval of 7 weeks during 1997-2007. The median radiotherapy dose was 5040 cGy. We excluded 58 patients with pathologic complete response (pCR) and compared among the remaining 162 patients pathologic downstaging (cII to ypI, cIII to ypII or ypI) versus no pathologic downstaging (c stage < or = yp stage). Outcomes evaluated were 5-year overall survival, 3-year cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival, overall recurrence, local recurrence, and distant recurrence. RESULTS: The median age was 58 years and median follow-up was 48 months. Patients with downstaging versus no downstaging were statistically comparable with respect to demographics, chemoradiation regimen, interval time between neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery, tumor distance from anal verge, surgical procedures performed, and follow-up time. With the exception of local recurrence rates, downstaging resulted in significantly improved cancer outcomes for cIII but not cII. CONCLUSIONS: Downstaging without pCR is a significant prognostic factor for patients with stage cIII rectal cancer. Tumor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation should be taken into account when defining the optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with cIII rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is the standard care for the majority of patients with ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis requiring surgery. The aim of this study is to determine whether the omission of an ileostomy in patients undergoing ileal pouch surgery offers cost savings to the hospital. METHODS: Patients who underwent open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis between 2000 and 2007 were identified. They were grouped according to the absence or presence of an ileostomy at the time of their surgery. Direct costs were calculated from the hospital's accounting database. Costs analyzed included those from the index surgery, ileostomy closure, and 6-month complications. RESULTS: Cost data were available for 835 patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Seven hundred fifteen (86%) had a diverting ileostomy, and the ileostomy was omitted in 120 (14%). Patients without an ileostomy had a longer length of stay (8.7 vs 6.0 days; P < .001) and a 15% greater cost (P < .001) at the time of index surgery than did those with an ileostomy. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in costs related to complications. The total costs, including ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, ileostomy closure, and complications, were 25% greater in the ileostomy group than in the group who had the ileostomy omitted at the index surgery ($9176 (+/- 6559) vs $11,451 (+/- 8791); P < .001). CONCLUSION: The above data shows that in a select group of patients meeting well-defined clinical criteria, the omission of a diverting ileostomy will provide significant cost savings for the hospital.

AIM: The study aim is to review the prevalence, management, and outcomes for patients diagnosed with ileal pouch prolapse after restorative proctocolectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were identified retrospectively from a prospectively maintained pouch database. Parameters analyzed included presenting symptoms, indications for pouch surgery, type of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, treatment modalities, and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 3,176 patients who underwent ileal pouch surgery, 11 were diagnosed with pouch prolapse (0.3%). Seven had full-thickness prolapse and four mucosal prolapse. Six were male, and five were female. Indication for index surgery was ulcerative colitis (nine patients), familial adenomatous polyposis (one patient), and colonic inertia (one patient). Median age at pouch prolapse was 34 years. Median time from index surgery to prolapse diagnosis was 2 years. Two patients with mucosal prolapse responded to conservative management; two required mucosal excisions. An abdominal approach was successful in four out of seven patients with full thickness prolapse. The three failures subsequently underwent continent ileostomy formation and prompted us to add biological mesh to future pouchpexy repairs. CONCLUSIONS: Pouch prolapse is rare, and there are no obvious predisposing factors. Mucosal prolapse may be treated by stool bulking or a local perineal procedure. Full thickness prolapse requires definitive surgery and is associated with risk of pouch loss.

BACKGROUND: Conceivably, the benefits of earlier recovery associated with a minimally invasive technique used in laparoscopic colectomy (LC) may be amplified for patients with comorbid disease. The dearth of evidence supporting the safety of laparoscopy for these patients led to a comparison of outcomes between LC and open colectomy (OC) for patients with American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classifications 3 and 4. METHODS: Data for all ASA 3 and 4 patients who underwent elective LC were reviewed from a prospectively maintained laparoscopic database. The patients who underwent LC were matched with OC patients by age, gender, diagnosis, year, and type of surgery. Estimated blood loss, operation time, time to return of bowel function, length of hospital stay, readmission rate, and 30-day complication and mortality rates were compared using chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon tests as appropriate. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: In this study, 231 LCs were matched with 231 OCs. The median age of the patients was 68 years, and 234 (51%) of the patients were male. There were 44 (19%) conversions from LC to OC. More patients in the OC group had undergone previous major laparotomy (5 vs. 15%; p < 0.001). Estimated blood loss, return of bowel function, length of hospital stay, and total direct costs were decreased in the LC group. Wound infection was significantly greater with OC (p = 0.02). When patients with previous major laparotomy were excluded, the two groups had similar overall morbidity. The other benefits of LC, however, persisted. CONCLUSION: The findings show that LC is a safe option for patients with a high ASA classification. The LC approach is associated with faster postoperative recovery, lower morbidity rates, and lower hospital costs than the OC approach.

BACKGROUND: The feasibility and safety of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) for morbidly obese patients has not been reported previously. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 kg/m(3) or more who undergo laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: Prospectively accrued data for patients with a BMI of 40 kg/m(3) or more (group A) who undergo LC were compared with those for patients with BMI lower than 30 kg/m(3) (group B) matched for year of surgery, indication, operating surgeon, and type of procedure. RESULTS: Each group had 36 patients. The group A patients were significantly younger (54 vs. 61 years; P = 0.04), had higher American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) scores (P = 0.001), and had diabetes mellitus (P = 0.04). The indications for surgery and the operations performed were similar. The two groups had similar operating times (177.9 vs. 136.4 min; P = 0.12), estimated blood losses (222.3 vs. 157 ml; P = 0.1), median lengths of hospital stay (LOS) (4.5 vs. 4 days; P = 0.2), and returns of bowel function (4.2 vs. 3.9 days; P = 0.45). Group A had significantly longer incisions (6.9 vs. 5 cm; P = 0.02). Conversions (5 vs. 3 patients; P = 0.7), readmissions (12 vs. 6 patients; P = 0.46), reoperations (5 vs. 3 patients; P = 0.17), wound infections (7 vs. 2 patients; P = 0.14), anastomotic leaks (3 vs. 2 patients; P = 0.7), and abdominal abscesses (3 vs. 2 patients; P = 0.7) were more predominant in group A, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colectomy is feasible for morbidly obese patients and results in recovery of intestinal function and LOS equivalent to that for nonobese patients. As expected, morbidity and conversion rates are higher for morbidly obese patients undergoing LC than for nonobese patients.

BACKGROUND: Pouchitis is associated with dysbiosis and dysregulated mucosal immunity, although secondary pouchitis with special etiologic factors, such as ischemia, can occur. The aim was to describe a disease phenotype of the ileal pouch with an endoscopic appearance suggestive of ischemia. METHODS: We identified consecutive patients with endoscopic asymmetric inflammation of the pouch (inflammation of side of the pouch with a completely normal other limb of the pouch one limb and a sharp demarcation along the staple suture line). Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) of the pouch or antibiotic-responsive pouchitis, matched for duration of the pouch, served as controls. Histology slides of mucosal biopsies were re-reviewed independently by 2 blinded gastrointestinal pathologists. Demographic, clinical, endoscopic, histologic, and imaging characteristics were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Ten patients with "ischemic" pouchitis, 15 with CD of the pouch, and 15 with antibiotic-responsive pouchitis were studied. Pyloric gland metaplasia was observed only in the groups with CD of the pouch (23.1%) or antibiotic-responsive pouchitis (13.3%). Of patients with "ischemic" pouchitis, 80% had extracellular hemosiderin or hematoidin deposits (versus 30.8% those with CD of the pouch and 13.3% of those with pouchitis, P = 0.003). The majority of patients (80%) with "ischemic" pouchitis did not respond to conventional antibiotic therapy. It appeared that subsequent abdominal surgeries after pouch construction and a history of postoperative portal vein thrombi were associated with "ischemic" pouchitis. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic asymmetric inflammation of the pouch may represent an ischemia-associated pouchitis with characteristic clinical, radiographic, and histologic features. Its hemodynamic, cellular, and molecular basis of mechanism warrants further study.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have evaluated factors that may be associated with the development of septic complications after restorative proctocolectomy. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate preoperative and operative factors that might be associated with septic complications after restorative proctocolectomy. METHODS: Patients developing abdominal and pelvic septic complications after restorative proctocolectomy were identified from a prospective database. Patients with subclinical leaks and ileostomy closure leak were not included in the septic complication group. A multivariable logistic regression model for sepsis was constructed using a forward stepwise selection with entry criterion of P < 0.05. RESULTS: From 1983 to 2007, 3233 patients (56% male) were included in the database. Eight-four percent (2597) of patients underwent proximal diversion. Two hundred patients (6.2%) developed septic complications within 3 months of restorative proctocolectomy or within 3 months of ileostomy closure. On multivariate analysis, body mass index > 30 (P = 0.02, OR = 1.77), final pathologic diagnosis of ulcerative/indeterminate colitis (P = 0.02, OR = 2) or Crohn's disease (P = 0.02, OR = 3.6), intraoperative (P = 0.02, OR = 1.6), and postoperative transfusions (P = 0.01, OR = 1.9) were all independently associated with septic complications. We also demonstrated an independent association among individual surgeons (P = 0.04) with decreased septic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Body mass index greater than 30, final pathologic diagnosis of ulcerative/indeterminate colitis or Crohn's disease, intraoperative and postoperative transfusions, and surgeon were all independent factors associated with septic complications after restorative proctocolectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Technical complications after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis may be mislabeled as Crohn's disease. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the presentation, treatment, and outcomes of patients with a potential misdiagnosis of Crohn's disease who have undergone redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. METHODS: We evaluated a historical cohort of patients, initially referred from outside institutions with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease of the pouch, who subsequently had redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (redo pouch or pouch revision for pouch failure) at our institution. With the use of validated questionnaires, the functional outcomes and quality of life of this cohort were compared with a control group of patients who underwent primary ileal pouch-anal anastomosis to assess whether a change in the diagnosis from Crohn's disease to technical complications was appropriate. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients underwent a redo pouch procedure for a previous diagnosis of Crohn's disease of the pouch. Precolectomy diagnosis included ulcerative colitis (31 patients) and indeterminate colitis (2 patients). Findings on our further evaluation and subsequent indications for repeat pouch surgery included pouch fistula (20 patients), pelvic sepsis or anastomotic leak (17 patients), stricture (4 patients), refractory pouchitis (2 patients), long exit conduit (1 patient), and retained rectal stump (1 patient). All patients had medical treatment for Crohn's disease before referral. Median time between primary and redo pouch was 2.1 years (interquartile range, 1.8-4.9). Median follow-up was 1.7 years (interquartile range, 1.0-3.5). Pouch retention rate was 84.8%. Five patients (15.2%) had pouch failure. Seven patients (21.2%) ultimately had pathology consistent with Crohn's disease. Comparison of the redo pouch and control groups revealed that functional outcomes and quality of life were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Patients identified as having Crohn's disease need to be carefully reevaluated because some of these patients may actually have surgery-associated complications and can have a favorable long-term outcome after redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.