Shlomo Yellinek1, Hayim Gilshtein1, Dimitri Krizzuk1, Steven D Wexner2. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd., Weston, FL, 33331, USA. 2. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd., Weston, FL, 33331, USA. wexners@ccf.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal J pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) has become the standard of care for mucosal ulcerative colitis and Familial Adenomatous Polyposis. Some patients require re-operation, including pouch revision, advancement, or excision. Re-operative procedures are technically demanding and usually performed only by experienced colorectal surgeons in a small number of referral centers. There is a paucity of data regarding feasibility, safety, and outcomes of laparoscopic re-operative IPAA surgery. This study aimed to determine the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic approach for re-operative IPAA, trans-abdominal surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of IRB-approved prospective database for patients who underwent trans-abdominal re-operative IPAA from 2011 to 2018. Patient demographics and operative reports were reviewed to classify type of re-operation into pouch excision, revision, or advancement and further classify as laparoscopic, laparoscopic converted to open, or open surgery. Main outcome measures were post-operative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients met the inclusion criteria: 19 underwent attempted laparoscopic re-operative IPAA surgery, 12 of whom underwent successful laparoscopic surgery while 7 were converted to laparotomy, for an overall laparoscopic intent to treat 63% success rate. The remaining operations (n = 57) were performed through midline laparotomy. Length of stay (LOS) for patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery was significantly shorter (5.5 vs 9.7 days, p < 0.001) as were abdominal superficial surgical site infections (SSI) (0% vs 18%, p < 0.001) and deep SSI (0% vs 17%, p < 0.001). Laparotomy was performed by 6 colorectal surgeons at our institution while laparoscopy was successfully performed only by the senior author. There was no significant difference in overall complications, re-admission, re-operation, or mortality. CONCLUSION: Re-operative, trans-abdominal, laparoscopic IPAA is both feasible and safe and has clear benefits compared to laparotomy in terms of LOS and superficial and deep SSI. However, this approach needs to be undertaken only by very experienced, high-volume laparoscopic IPAA surgeons.
BACKGROUND: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal J pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) has become the standard of care for mucosal ulcerative colitis and Familial Adenomatous Polyposis. Some patients require re-operation, including pouch revision, advancement, or excision. Re-operative procedures are technically demanding and usually performed only by experienced colorectal surgeons in a small number of referral centers. There is a paucity of data regarding feasibility, safety, and outcomes of laparoscopic re-operative IPAA surgery. This study aimed to determine the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic approach for re-operative IPAA, trans-abdominal surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of IRB-approved prospective database for patients who underwent trans-abdominal re-operative IPAA from 2011 to 2018. Patient demographics and operative reports were reviewed to classify type of re-operation into pouch excision, revision, or advancement and further classify as laparoscopic, laparoscopic converted to open, or open surgery. Main outcome measures were post-operative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients met the inclusion criteria: 19 underwent attempted laparoscopic re-operative IPAA surgery, 12 of whom underwent successful laparoscopic surgery while 7 were converted to laparotomy, for an overall laparoscopic intent to treat 63% success rate. The remaining operations (n = 57) were performed through midline laparotomy. Length of stay (LOS) for patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery was significantly shorter (5.5 vs 9.7 days, p < 0.001) as were abdominal superficial surgical site infections (SSI) (0% vs 18%, p < 0.001) and deep SSI (0% vs 17%, p < 0.001). Laparotomy was performed by 6 colorectal surgeons at our institution while laparoscopy was successfully performed only by the senior author. There was no significant difference in overall complications, re-admission, re-operation, or mortality. CONCLUSION: Re-operative, trans-abdominal, laparoscopic IPAA is both feasible and safe and has clear benefits compared to laparotomy in terms of LOS and superficial and deep SSI. However, this approach needs to be undertaken only by very experienced, high-volume laparoscopic IPAA surgeons.
Authors: Chunkang Yang; Steven D Wexner; Bashar Safar; Sanjay Jobanputra; Heiying Jin; Vicky KaMing Li; Juan J Nogueras; Eric G Weiss; Dana R Sands Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 4.584