Faculty Bibliography

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.

Introduction: Redo ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA), the procedure of choice for IPAA, is mainly attempted in specialized centers but referral patterns for redo IPAA are not well known. Social media may be a valuable tool for patients to find surgeons. In our study we evaluated referral patterns of redo IPAA.
Method(s): All redo IPAA procedures performed at our center for IPAA failure between 09/2016 and 02/2022 were included. Patient demographics, disease characteristics and referral patterns were reported.
Result(s): A total of 141 patients with IPAA failure who had redo IPAA surgery were included. The median age was 40 years. The median time between the index surgery and the redo surgery was 5 years (interquartile range: 2-11). There were 108 ulcerative colitis, 25 indeterminate colitis and 8 familial adenomatous polyposis patients. Referrals for 49 patients were via social media or word of mouth (33.1%), 48 were referred by gastroenterologists (32.4%), 33 by colorectal surgeons (22.3%) and 1 by an oncologist (0.7%). The index case was done by our team in 11 patients (7.4%). A significant majority of patients, 30%, were from outside of our center's tristate area.
Conclusion(s): Social media and patient-patient interaction was the number one referral source, followed closely by the gastroenterologists. The small number of referrals by the primary surgeon is a source of concern since the majority of redo IPAAs are done to fix surgical failures

BACKGROUND:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, data on national trends remain limited. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:To assess national trends in VTE-associated hospitalisations among patients with IBD as well as risk factors for, and mortality associated with, these events METHODS: Using the U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2000-2018, temporal trends in VTE were assessed using the National Cancer Institute's Joinpoint Regression Program with estimates presented as the average annual percent change (AAPC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS:Between 2000 and 2018, there were 4,859,728 hospitalisations among patients with IBD, with 128,236 (2.6%) having a VTE, and 6352 associated deaths. The rate of VTE among hospitalised patients with IBD increased from 192 to 295 cases per 10,000 hospitalisations (AAPC 2.4%, 95%CI 1.4%, 3.4%, p < 0.001), and remained significant when stratified by ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease as well as by deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. On multivariable analysis, increasing age, male sex, UC (aOR: 1.30, 95%CI 1.26, 1.33), identifying as non-Hispanic Black, and chronic corticosteroid use (aOR: 1.22, 95%CI 1.16, 1.29) were associated with an increased risk of a VTE-associated hospitalisation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Rates of VTE-associated hospitalisations are increasing among patients with IBD. Continued efforts need to be placed on education and risk reduction.

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:Postoperative recurrence (POR) of Crohn's disease (CD) is common after surgical resection. We aimed to compare biologic type and timing for preventing POR in adult CD patients after ileocecal resection (ICR). METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study of CD patients who underwent an ICR at 2 medical centers. Recurrence was defined by endoscopy (≥ i2b Rutgeerts score) or radiography (active inflammation in neoterminal ileum) and stratified by type and timing of postoperative prophylactic biologic within 12 weeks following an ICR (none, tumor necrosis factor antagonists [anti-TNF], vedolizumab, and ustekinumab). RESULTS:We identified 1037 patients with CD who underwent an ICR. Of 278 (26%) who received postoperative prophylaxis, 80% were placed on an anti-TNF agent (n = 223) followed by ustekinumab (n = 28, 10%) and vedolizumab (n = 27, 10%). Prophylaxis was initiated in 35% within 4 weeks following an ICR and in 65% within 4 to 12 weeks. After adjusting for factors associated with POR, compared with no biologic prophylaxis, the initiation of an anti-TNF agent within 4 weeks following an ICR was associated with a reduction in POR (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.93). Prophylaxis after 4 weeks following an ICR or with vedolizumab or ustekinumab was not associated with a reduction in POR compared with those who did not receive prophylaxis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Early initiation of an anti-TNF agent within 4 weeks following an ICR was associated with a reduction in POR. Vedolizumab or ustekinumab, at any time following surgery, was not associated with a reduction in POR, although sample size was limited.

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.

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: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.