PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the functional outcome and the quality of life of laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch-anal anastomosis compared with conventional ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Further, body image and cosmesis were evaluated in both groups. METHODS: Sixteen patients who underwent a laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch-anal anastomosis between March 1996 and September 1999 were matched with 19 patients who had a conventional ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Patients were matched for the time period after surgery, distribution of familial adenomatous polyposis/ulcerative colitis, and one/two-stage procedure. Thirty-two patients agreed to fill out a set of questionnaires that assessed functional outcome, quality of life, body image, and cosmesis. Quality of life was measured with the Short Form 36 Health Survey questionnaire and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index. The Body Image Questionnaire was used to measure patients' perceptions of and satisfaction with their own body and their attitude toward their bodily appearance (body image) and the degree of satisfaction of patients with respect to the physical appearance of the scar (cosmesis). RESULTS: Patients in the conventional group were older than patients in the laparoscopic-assisted group (mean 39.2 +/- 8.4 vs. 30.6 +/- 7.1 years; P < 0.01). No differences were found in functional outcome and quality of life. Satisfaction with the cosmetic result of the scar was significantly higher in the laparoscopic-assisted group compared with the conventional group. Body image score was higher in the laparoscopic-assisted group when compared with the conventional group, although not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The functional outcome and quality of life of laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is not different from conventional ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. In the long-term, better cosmesis is the most important advantage after laparoscopic surgery.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the functional outcome and the quality of life of laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch-anal anastomosis compared with conventional ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Further, body image and cosmesis were evaluated in both groups. METHODS: Sixteen patients who underwent a laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch-anal anastomosis between March 1996 and September 1999 were matched with 19 patients who had a conventional ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Patients were matched for the time period after surgery, distribution of familial adenomatous polyposis/ulcerative colitis, and one/two-stage procedure. Thirty-two patients agreed to fill out a set of questionnaires that assessed functional outcome, quality of life, body image, and cosmesis. Quality of life was measured with the Short Form 36 Health Survey questionnaire and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index. The Body Image Questionnaire was used to measure patients' perceptions of and satisfaction with their own body and their attitude toward their bodily appearance (body image) and the degree of satisfaction of patients with respect to the physical appearance of the scar (cosmesis). RESULTS:Patients in the conventional group were older than patients in the laparoscopic-assisted group (mean 39.2 +/- 8.4 vs. 30.6 +/- 7.1 years; P < 0.01). No differences were found in functional outcome and quality of life. Satisfaction with the cosmetic result of the scar was significantly higher in the laparoscopic-assisted group compared with the conventional group. Body image score was higher in the laparoscopic-assisted group when compared with the conventional group, although not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The functional outcome and quality of life of laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is not different from conventional ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. In the long-term, better cosmesis is the most important advantage after laparoscopic surgery.
Authors: Stefan Maartense; Michalda S Dunker; J Frederick Slors; Miguel A Cuesta; Dirk J Gouma; Sander J van Deventer; Ad A van Bodegraven; Willem A Bemelman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Amosy E M'Koma; Paul E Wise; Roberta L Muldoon; David A Schwartz; Mary K Washington; Alan J Herline Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2007-06-19 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Indraneel Datta; Brenda O'Connor; J Charles Victor; David R Urbach; Robin S McLeod Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2009-01-16 Impact factor: 3.452