Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Dis Colon Rectum. 1995 Feb;38(2):188-94.

Restorative proctocolectomy without diverting ileostomy.

Author information

  • 1Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) by abdominal colectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) in the setting of chronic ulcerative colitis (CUC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) has gained widespread popularity among surgeons and patients. Traditionally, temporary loop ileostomy has been established proximal to the ileal pouch in an effort to mitigate the effects of any suture line complications that may occur. This study compares functional results and complications encountered after RPC with mucosectomy with and without temporary ileostomy.

METHODS:

One hundred forty-three consecutive patients with either CUC or FAP underwent RPC including mucosectomy and ileal "J" reservoir. Proximal loop ileostomy was performed in 69 patients, and ileostomy was omitted in 74. Ileostomy was omitted if the patient was taking no immunosuppressives and less than 20 mg of prednisone daily in the month preceding surgery, the anastomosis was absolutely tension-free, and blood supply to the pouch was excellent.

RESULTS:

There were no perioperative deaths. There were two instances of pelvic abscess, one in the diverted group and one in the nondiverted group. Occurrence of IPAA suture line dehiscence was not significantly different between the two groups (ileostomy, 4/69 (6 percent), vs. no ileostomy, 6/74 (8 percent); P > 0.05). Comparison of 129 patients with colitis with and without diversion also failed to demonstrate a significant difference with regard to IPAA suture line dehiscence (ileostomy, 4/69 (6 percent) vs. 4/60 (7 percent); P > 0.05). Frequency of bowel movements and continence were the same in both groups and were comparable with results obtained without mucosectomy. Mean hospital stay at time of RPC for the nondiverted group was significantly longer (12 days vs. 10 days; P = 0.0004). Significantly fewer patients without an ileostomy were hospitalized for partial intestinal obstruction (ileostomy, 13/69 (19 percent), vs. no ileostomy, 3/74 (4 percent); P = 0.02), and significantly fewer required enterolysis (ileostomy, 7/69 (10 percent), vs. no ileostomy, 1/74 (1 percent); P = 0.04). On average, patients without an ileostomy spent significantly fewer total days in the hospital (17 vs. 24; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION:

Restorative proctocolectomy with mucosectomy and without ileostomy is the procedure of choice for selected patients with FAP and CUC. Septic complications and functional results are similar to those seen in patients managed with a stoma. Anastomotic leakage, when it occurs, can be safely managed in most cases without surgery. RPC without ileostomy results in significantly fewer episodes of intestinal obstruction, fewer instances of re-exploration, and fewer total days in the hospital.

PMID:
7851175
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk