Literature DB >> 8775636

Ileal pouch anal function after endoanal mucosectomy and handsewn ileoanal anastomosis compared with stapled anastomosis without mucosectomy.

T A Hallgren1, S B Fasth, T O Oresland, L A Hultén.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare manovolumetric results and functional outcome after restorative proctocolectomy with either mucosal proctectomy and handsewn pouch-anal anastomosis or stapling.
DESIGN: Prospective randomised study.
SETTING: University hospital, Sweden.
SUBJECTS: 80 Consecutive patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy.
INTERVENTIONS: 37 patients were randomised to have mucosectomy and a handsewn anastomosis and 43 patients to have a stapled anastomosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparisons of anal sphincter function and clinical outcome in terms of continence and overall functional score between the two groups of patients.
RESULTS: There was persistent reduction in anal resting tone at one year amounting to 29% in the handsewn group and and to 21% in the stapled group (p < 0.001 compared with preoperative in both groups). Daytime continence was similar, but patients with stapled anastomoses experienced less soiling during sleep, especially in the early postoperative period (5/43, 12% compared with 15/33, 45% at one month, p < 0.001). The arbitrary overall functional score was, however, similar in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Handsewn and stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomoses result in similar postoperative anal sphincter impairment and overall clinical outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8775636

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Surg        ISSN: 1102-4151


  8 in total

1.  Guidelines for the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults.

Authors:  M J Carter; A J Lobo; S P L Travis
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  A comparison of hand-sewn versus stapled ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) following proctocolectomy: a meta-analysis of 4183 patients.

Authors:  Richard E Lovegrove; Vasilis A Constantinides; Alexander G Heriot; Thanos Athanasiou; Ara Darzi; Feza H Remzi; R John Nicholls; Victor W Fazio; Paris P Tekkis
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Technical aspects of ileoanal pouch surgery.

Authors:  Peter W G Carne; John H Pemberton
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2004-02

4.  Restorative proctocolectomy: the current ochsner experience.

Authors:  Shahrazad Talebinejad; Terry C Hicks; David A Margolin; Charles B Whitlow; H David Vargas; David E Beck
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2013

Review 5.  Restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for familial adenomatous polyposis revisited.

Authors:  Alex Kartheuser; Pierre Stangherlin; Dimitri Brandt; Christophe Remue; Christine Sempoux
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 6.  Completion mucosectomy for retained rectal mucosa following restorative proctocolectomy with double-stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.

Authors:  Maria E Litzendorf; Arthur F Stucchi; Susana Wishnia; Amy Lightner; James M Becker
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 7.  Pouch reconstruction in the pelvis.

Authors:  H-P Bruch; O Schwandner; S Farke; J Nolde
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2003-03-25       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 8.  Ileal pouch surgery for ulcerative colitis.

Authors:  Simon P Bach; Neil J Mortensen
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-06-28       Impact factor: 5.742

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.