Literature DB >> 17223938

Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: the Australasian experience.

M J F X Rickard1, C J Young, I P Bissett, R Stitz, M J Solomon.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to establish and maintain an internet-based database of all ileal pouch procedures performed in major centres in Australasia.
METHOD: The initial three colorectal units contributing data are Auckland, northern Brisbane and Central Sydney Area Health Service. A web-based database was designed. The data collection method was tested on a subgroup of 20 patients to ensure functionality. Data were collected in five main categories: patient demographics, preoperative data, operative details, postoperative complications and functional results.
RESULTS: Initial data are presented for 516 patients [363 J, (70%), 133 W (26%), 16 S pouches (3%)]. There were two deaths within 30 days (0.4%). The anastomotic leak rate overall, in handsewn (HSA) and stapled anastomoses (SA) respectively was 5.0%, 8.5% and 3.3% (P=0.02 for difference HSA vs SA). Incidence of pouchitis was 20% (ulcerative colitis 23%, Crohn's disease 20%, indeterminate colitis 22%, familial adenomatous polyposis 9%). Incidence of anal stricture requiring intervention (11% overall) was significantly greater in HSAs than in SAs (16%vs 9%, P=0.02). Incidence of small bowel obstruction at any time postoperatively was 16%. Functional data were available for 234 patients. The median frequency of bowel actions during waking hours was significantly less in W pouches than in J pouches (four vs five, P=0.0005).
CONCLUSION: A national web-based database has been developed for access by all Australasian colorectal units. Initial Australasian data compare favourably with other international studies. Pouchitis continues to be a long-term problem. The leak rate and rate of late anal stricture requiring a procedure are higher if the anastomosis is handsewn rather than stapled. Functional results are better with the W pouch than with the J pouch.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17223938     DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.01151.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 1462-8910            Impact factor:   3.788


  5 in total

1.  Single incision laparoscopic (SILS) restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.

Authors:  K J Gash; A C Goede; B Kaldowski; B Vestweber; A R Dixon
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-07-15       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis 20 years later: is it still a good surgical option for patients with ulcerative colitis?

Authors:  Gentilini Lorenzo; Coscia Maurizio; Lombardi Pietro Maria; Marta Tanzanu; Laureti Silvio; Podda Mariangela; Poggioli Gilberto
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes in 588 patients undergoing minimally invasive ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a single-institution experience.

Authors:  S-J Baek; E J Dozois; K L Mathis; A L Lightner; S Y Boostrom; R R Cima; J H Pemberton; D W Larson
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 3.781

4.  Association of ileocolic pedicle division with postoperative complications after restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis.

Authors:  Emmanouil Tzatzarakis; Florian Herrle; Wolfgang Reindl; Nora Altmayer; Dominik Minas; Peter Kienle; Christoph Reissfelder; Flavius Şandra-Petrescu
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2021-12-18       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 5.  Ileal-anal pouches: A review of its history, indications, and complications.

Authors:  Kheng-Seong Ng; Simon Joseph Gonsalves; Peter Michael Sagar
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.