Search

Purpose: Since the introduction of ileo-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery, various pouch designs have been applied. Recently, there has been renewed interest in creating larger pouch designs to reduce defecation frequency after pouch surgery. The aim of this study was to assess chronic pouch failure (PF) rates and causes in alternative S or septated (SP) pouches when compared to J pouches and B- shaped adaptations. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients that underwent primary IPAA construction surgery from 1978–2000. Pouch designs were subdivided in J and B (J/B), and larger pouches (S/SP). PF included need for a pouch excision, redo pouch procedure, revisional pouch surgery, or permanent ileostomy surgery. Outcomes of this study were incidence and causes for PF per pouch design group. Results: Out of 200 patients who underwent IPAA surgery, 19 had an S/SP design and 181 had a J/B design. After a follow-up of 27.0 (IQR 23.3 – 29.0) years, 45/200 (22.5%) patients who underwent IPAA surgery between 1975–2000 developed PF. Some 78.9% of patients with an S/SP pouch developed PF, compared to 16.7% of patients with a J/B pouch (p < 0.01). Mechanical outlet issues occurred more often in S/SP pouches when compared to J/B (42.1% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.01), and were predominantly caused by septal- or pouch wall intussusception and efferent loop kinking (S-pouch). Conclusion: Despite an inevitable proportion of bias, the current study revealed that S/SP pouches were characterized by an increased PF incidence due to emptying problems after long-term follow-up when compared to J/B pouches. Constructing an S pouch or large septated reservoir at index surgery should therefore be questioned because of a shorter longevity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aim: There is no consensus as to which ileoanal pouch design provides better outcomes after restorative proctocolectomy. This study compares different pouch designs. Method: A systematic review of the literature was performed. A random effects meta‐analytical model was used to compare adverse events and functional outcome. Results: Thirty comparative studies comparing J, W, S and K pouch designs were included. No significant differences were identified between the different pouch designs with regard to anastomotic dehiscence, anastomotic stricture, pelvic sepsis, wound infection, pouch fistula, pouch ischaemia, perioperative haemorrhage, small bowel obstruction, pouchitis and sexual dysfunction. The W and K designs resulted in fewer cases of pouch failure compared with the J and S designs. J pouch construction resulted in a smaller maximum pouch volume compared with W and K pouches. Stool frequency per 24 h and during daytime was higher following a J pouch than W, S or K constructions. The J design resulted in increased faecal urgency and seepage during daytime compared with the K design. The use of protective pads during daytime and night‐time was greater with a J pouch compared to S or K. The use of antidiarrhoeal medication was greater after a J reservoir than a W reservoir. Difficulty in pouch evacuation requiring intubation was higher with an S pouch than with W or J pouches. Conclusion: Despite its ease of construction and comparable complication rates, the J pouch is associated with higher pouch failure rates and worse function. Patient characteristics, technical factors and surgical expertise should be considered when choosing pouch design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The object of this study was to compare function and quality of life after restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery having two different pouch designs. Method Patients having RPC in an academic unit from 2000 who had had the loop-ileostomy closed by June 2013 were identified from the hospital medical records. They were sent a questionnaire regarding quality of life and interviewed using a pouch function score (PFS) described by Oresland (score 0-16, higher scores denote worse function). Results One hundred and three patients underwent surgery, of whom 56 had a J-pouch design and 47 a K-pouch design, this being a double-folded Kock pouch without the nipple valve. No patients have had the pouch removed or defunctioned due to failure at a mean of 8 years. The reoperation rate was 11.6%. The mean PFS was 5.43 and 5.27 for J- and K-pouches, respectively ( P = 0.766). More patients with a J-pouch reported a social handicap due to poor bowel function ( P = 0.041). Patients with a PFS ≥ 8 had a poorer quality of life. A score of ≥ 8 was reported by 16% of K-pouch and 25% of J-pouch patients ( P = 0.29). Conclusion RPC is a safe procedure with a low complication rate and good functional outcome. Small improvements in function have an impact on a patient's quality of life. Although the J-pouch is the most commonly used, the K-pouch has some advantages. Other pouch designs deserve further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]