Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Analyze our long-term experience with a less-popularized but stalwart approach, the stapled end-to-side ileocolic anastomosis. BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The choice of technical approach to ileocolic anastomosis after ileocecal resection for Crohn's disease affects surgical outcomes and recurrence. Yet, despite heterogeneous data from different anastomotic configurations, there remains no clear guidance as to the optimal technique. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:In a retrospective cohort design, patients undergoing ileocolic anastomosis in the setting of Crohn's disease between 2016 and 2021 at two institutions were identified. Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes in terms of recurrence (surgical, clinical, and endoscopic) were studied. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:In total, 211 patients were included. Before surgery, 80% were exposed to at least 1 cycle of systemic steroids and 71% had at least 1 biologic agent; 60% exhibited penetrating disease and 38% developed an intra-abdominal abscess. After surgery, one anastomosis leaked (0.5%). Over 2.4 years of follow-up (IQR = 1.3-3.9), surgical recurrence was 0.9%. Two-year overall recurrence-free and endoscopic recurrence-free survivals were 74% and 85% (95% CI = 68-81 and 80-91), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio of endoscopic recurrence was 3.0 (95% CI = 1.4-6.2) for males and 5.2 (1.2-22) for patients who received systemic steroids before the surgery. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:The stapled end-to-side anastomosis is an efficient, reliable, and reproducible approach to maintain bowel continuity after ileocecal resection with durable outcomes. Our outcomes demonstrate low rates of disease recurrence and stand favorably in comparison to other more technically complex or protracted anastomotic approaches. This anastomosis is an ideal reconstructive approach after ileocecal resection for Crohn's disease.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The safety and feasibility of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the setting of colorectal cancer emergencies have been debated. We sought to compare postoperative outcomes of MIS with open techniques in the setting of colorectal cancer emergencies from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. METHODS:We included patients undergoing colectomy for colorectal cancer emergency between 2012 and 2019 "2012-2019" from the ACS-NSQIP dataset. We compared short-term morbidity, mortality, short-term oncological outcomes, and secondary outcomes for MIS vs open colectomies using propensity score matching. We then evaluated the trends of MIS versus open colectomies using linear regression analysis. RESULTS:We examined a total of 5544 patients (open n = 4070; MIS n = 1474) and included 1352 patients for our postoperative outcome analyses after propensity score matching 1:1 (open n = 676; MIS n = 676). Within the matched cohort, mortality was significantly higher in the open group (open 6.95% vs MIS 3.99%, OR 1.8, p = 0.023). Anastomotic leak rates were comparable between the  two groups (open 4.46% vs MIS 4.02%, OR 1.12, p = 0.787). Pulmonary complications were significantly higher after open surgery (open 10.06% vs MIS 4.73%, OR 2.25, p < 0.001). Rates of ileus were significantly higher amongst open patients (open 29.08% vs MIS 19.94%, p < 0.001). Patients stayed on average 1 day longer in the hospital after open surgery (p < 0.001). Rates of MIS for early tumors (N0 and T1/T2, n = 289) did not significantly change over 7 years (p = 0.597, rate = - 0.065%/year); however, utilization of MIS for late tumors (N1 or T3/T4, n = 4359) increased by 2.06% per year (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates that MIS was associated with superior postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery without compromising oncological outcomes in patients undergoing emergency colectomy for colon cancer. Within the matched cohort, MIS was associated with lower rates of mortality, pulmonary complications, ileus, and shorter postoperative length of stay.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of preoperative cross-sectional imaging findings using the SAR-AGA definitions in Crohn's disease (CD) patients who underwent ileocolic resection (ICR) with and without surgically complex ileocolic CD (CIC-CD). METHODS:69 CD patients [38 men; mean (± SD) age: 40.6 (16.2) years] who underwent ICR were retrospectively classified by surgical complexity by a colorectal surgeon using operative findings. CIC-CD was defined as ileal CD, not confined to the distal ileum. Two radiologists retrospectively evaluated the preoperative imaging for the presence and type of penetrating disease, stricture, or probable stricture using the SAR-AGA consensus definitions. The diagnostic performance of preoperative imaging findings was compared for patients with and without CIC-CD. Estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time (OT), conversion to open surgery, diversion, and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared. RESULTS:60.9% had CIC-CD and 79.7% underwent primary ICR. Penetrating disease was more common in patients with than without CIC-CD (76.2% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.0048) and similar among primary versus redo ICR (p = 0.12). Patients with CIC-CD had more complex fistulas (59.5% vs. 11.1%; p < 0.0001) and fewer simple fistulas (2.4% vs. 18.5%; p = 0.03) than those without. Mesenteric findings (abscess, inflammatory mass) were more frequent in patients with (35.7%) than without (0%) (p = 0.0002) CIC-CD. Stricture and probable stricture were similar (p = 0.59). CIC-CD patients had greater EBL (178 cc vs. 57 cc, p = 0.006), conversion rates (30% vs. 0%, p = 0.0026), and diversion (80% vs. 52%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Complex fistula, mesenteric abscess, or inflammatory mass defined by the SAR-AGA guidelines suggests CIC-CD. ICR for CIC-CD had greater EBL, conversion to open surgery, and diversion.

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:Studies to date show contrasting conclusions when comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses for minimally invasive right colectomy. Large multi-center prospective studies comparing perioperative outcomes between these two techniques are needed. The purpose of this study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses outcomes for robotic assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy. METHODS:Multi-center, prospective, observational study of patients with malignant or benign disease scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic-assisted right colectomy. Outcomes included conversion rate, gastrointestinal recovery, and complication rates. RESULTS:There were 280 patients: 156 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) group and 124 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) group. The EA group was older (mean age 67 vs. 65 years, p = 0.05) and had fewer white (81% vs. 90%, p = 0.05) and Hispanic (2% vs. 12%, p = 0.003) patients. The EA group had more patients with comorbidities (82% vs. 72%, p = 0.04) while there was no significant difference in individual comorbidities between groups. IA was associated with fewer conversions to open and hand-assisted laparoscopic approaches (p = 0.007), shorter extraction site incision length (4.9 vs. 6.2 cm; p ≤ 0.0001), and longer operative time (156.9 vs. 118.2 min). Postoperatively, patients with IA had shorter time to first flatus, (1.5 vs. 1.8 days; p ≤ 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (1.6 vs. 2.0 days; p = 0.0005), time to resume soft/regular diet (29.0 vs. 37.5 h; p = 0.0014), and shorter length of hospital stay (median, 3 vs. 4 days; p ≤ 0.0001). Postoperative complication rates were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this prospective, multi-center study of minimally invasive right colectomy across 20 institutions, IA was associated with significant improvements in conversion rates, return of bowel function, and shorter hospital stay, as well as significantly longer operative times compared to EA. These data validate current efforts to increase training and adoption of the IA technique for minimally invasive right colectomy.

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.

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.

Ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is gold standard surgical procedure for treatment of ulcerative colitis and majority of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. This procedure allows preservation of fecal continence and gastrointestinal continuity. However, it is associated with a wide variety of complications, which often have nonspecific and overlapping clinical presentations, making imaging an important part of work up for pouch dysfunction. The purpose of this article is to propose structured reporting templates for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Water Soluble Contrast Enema (WSCE) in IPAA patients based on our referral pouch center's experience. Included will be a review of salient surgical technique, pouch anatomy and imaging protocols, with an emphasis on systematic search pattern for evaluation of ileal pouch complications using proposed structured reporting MRI and WSCE templates.

The robotic platform can overcome limitations of the laparoscopic approach, particularly in the facilitation of intracorporeal anastomosis creation. We aim to share our institutional experience with robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease (CD) and compare it to a laparoscopic cohort. We identified patients who underwent ileocolic resection for CD with a purely robotic (R) or laparoscopic (L) approach between February 2015 and 2018. Chart review was performed and preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data was collected. A total of 47 patients with a mean age of 35.2 years old were identified and 61% were female. Seventy percent [n = 33, (23 females, 69.6%)] of the cases were performed robotically and 30% of the cases [n = 14, (6 females, 42.8%)] were performed laparoscopically. The groups were well matched for age, gender, BMI as well as disease related factors (CD duration; clinical classification and location), perioperative immunosuppression, and surgical history. Time to bowel function was shorter by about 1 day in the robotic group (R: 1.9 ± 0.88 days vs. L: 2.7 ± 0.8 days, p = 0.003). Mean operative time was longer in the robotic group by 51 min and this difference was significant (p = 0.03), however 30.3% of patients underwent ureteral stent placement, which can account for added time in robotic cases. There were less conversions in the robotic group [R: 1(4.3%) vs. L: 1(7%)], but this was not significant. There were no intraoperative complications in either group. Complication (L: 21.4% vs. R: 15.1%, p = 0.605) and reoperation rates (L: 0% vs. R: 3.03%, p = 0.429) were similar. Robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease is as safe and feasible as the laparoscopic approach. This was accomplished with no leaks, major morbidity or mortality and comparable length of stay, with 1 day shorter return of bowel function, and with a lower overall complication rate. The robotic approach offers advantages in Crohn's disease which should be studied further in prospective studies.