William Yu Luo1, Siddharth Singh2, Raphael Cuomo3, Samuel Eisenstein4. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA. seisenstein@health.ucsd.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) is performed for patients with refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). This operation is performed in 2 or 3 stages and involves forming a diverting loop ileostomy thought to protect patients from complications related to anastomotic leak. However, some advocate for a modified 2-stage approach, consisting of subtotal colectomy followed by completion proctectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis without diverting ileostomy. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing postoperative complication rates between modified 2-stage and traditional RPC with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. METHODS: Records were sourced from PubMed/Embase databases. Studies comparing postoperative complications following RPC for ulcerative colitis (UC) were selected according to PRISMA guidelines comparing modified 2-stage (exposure), classic 2-stage, and 3-stage approaches (comparators). The primary outcome measure was safety as measured by postoperative complication rates. We employed random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included ten observational studies including 1727 patients (38% modified 2-stage). Among pediatric patients, modified 2-stage approaches had higher rates of anastomotic leak than 3-stage approaches (p = 0.03). Among adult cohorts with lower preoperative biologic use rates, modified 2-stage approaches had lower leak rates than classic 2-stage approaches (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The modified 2-stage approach may be safe for adult patients who otherwise require a 3-stage approach while reducing costs and length of stay. Pediatric patients may benefit from lower leak rates when receiving 3-stage compared with modified 2-stage approaches, especially when on biologics. The modified 2-stage approach may be safer than the classic 2-stage approach for adult patients with lower biologic exposure.
PURPOSE: Restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) is performed for patients with refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). This operation is performed in 2 or 3 stages and involves forming a diverting loop ileostomy thought to protect patients from complications related to anastomotic leak. However, some advocate for a modified 2-stage approach, consisting of subtotal colectomy followed by completion proctectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis without diverting ileostomy. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing postoperative complication rates between modified 2-stage and traditional RPC with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. METHODS: Records were sourced from PubMed/Embase databases. Studies comparing postoperative complications following RPC for ulcerative colitis (UC) were selected according to PRISMA guidelines comparing modified 2-stage (exposure), classic 2-stage, and 3-stage approaches (comparators). The primary outcome measure was safety as measured by postoperative complication rates. We employed random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included ten observational studies including 1727 patients (38% modified 2-stage). Among pediatric patients, modified 2-stage approaches had higher rates of anastomotic leak than 3-stage approaches (p = 0.03). Among adult cohorts with lower preoperative biologic use rates, modified 2-stage approaches had lower leak rates than classic 2-stage approaches (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The modified 2-stage approach may be safe for adult patients who otherwise require a 3-stage approach while reducing costs and length of stay. Pediatric patients may benefit from lower leak rates when receiving 3-stage compared with modified 2-stage approaches, especially when on biologics. The modified 2-stage approach may be safer than the classic 2-stage approach for adult patients with lower biologic exposure.
Authors: Michelle P Kallis; Naomi-Liza Denning; Charlotte L Kvasnovsky; Aaron M Lipskar Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Eran Zittan; Nathalie Wong-Chong; Grace W Ma; Robin S McLeod; Mark S Silverberg; Zane Cohen Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 9.071
Authors: Feza H Remzi; Victor W Fazio; Emre Gorgun; Boon S Ooi; Jeff Hammel; Miriam Preen; James M Church; Khaled Madbouly; Ian C Lavery Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Michael D Kappelman; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Ken Kleinman; Dan Ollendorf; Athos Bousvaros; Richard J Grand; Jonathan A Finkelstein Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2007-09-29 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Tom Øresland; Willem A Bemelman; Gianluca M Sampietro; Antonino Spinelli; Alastair Windsor; Marc Ferrante; Philippe Marteau; Oded Zmora; Paulo Gustavo Kotze; Eloy Espin-Basany; Emmanuel Tiret; Giuseppe Sica; Yves Panis; Arne E Faerden; Livia Biancone; Imerio Angriman; Zuzana Serclova; Anthony de Buck van Overstraeten; Paolo Gionchetti; Laurents Stassen; Janindra Warusavitarne; Michel Adamina; Axel Dignass; Rami Eliakim; Fernando Magro; André D'Hoore Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 10.020