PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Proctocolectomy, Restorative”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1992

The role of the defunctioning ileostomy in restorative proctocolectomy.

Restorative proctocolectomy is now the treatment of choice for most patients with ulcerative colitis and familial polyposis coli. Temporary defunctioning ileostomy has been advocated during the period of anastomotic healing to prevent pelvic sepsis. However, the ileostomy itself may be a source of significant complications. To examine ileostomy function we reviewed thirty five patients (mean age 34.5 +/- 1.95 years) who underwent restorative proctocolectomy. Thirty four patients had a defunctioning ileostomy established at the time of pouch anal anastomosis. Closure of the ileostomy has been carried out in 33 patients (mean closure time 3.1 +/- 0.29 months). One patient underwent early pouch excision. Thirteen of the 35 patients developed post-operative complications (37%), two directly related to the defunctioning ileostomy. Both occurred following closure of the stoma and required laparotomy. Serious complications associated with defunctioning ileostomy as demonstrated in this study are uncommon (8.5%). Given the potentially disastrous consequences of a pouch-anal anastomotic leak we feel that the relatively low morbidity associated with a defunctioning ileostomy justifies its continued routine usage in the operation of restorative proctocolectomy.

Adenomatous Polyposis Coli↗
PubMed1991

Clinical and functional outcome after restorative proctocolectomy.

Restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) has been carried out on 88 patients since 1982. Three different pouch designs (J, S and W) were used. Ten pouches had to be removed. Detailed analysis was performed on 61 patients (J = 23, S = 15, W = 23) whose pouches had been functioning for at least 6 months. There was no significant difference in surgical complications before or after ileostomy closure between pouch designs but the hospital stay was greater after construction of an S pouch (P less than 0.05). There were no significant differences in stool frequency, degree of continence or urgency between the three types. Twelve patients with J pouches required antidiarrhoeal medication compared with only one with S and five with W pouches. Only seven patients with S pouches could defaecate spontaneously compared with 22 with W pouches and all patients with J pouches (P less than 0.001). Twenty-five of 29 patients who had preservation of the anal transition zone had perfect continence compared with 23 of 32 with a mucosal proctectomy (P = n.s.). Pouchitis occurred in 13 patients, all of whom had ulcerative colitis. In a subgroup of 23 patients, pouch evacuation was assessed scintigraphically. There was no difference in pouch capacity or total volume evacuated, but spontaneous evacuation was better in J and W pouches compared with S pouches.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Early results with restorative proctocolectomy.

The first 25 restorative proctocolectomies (RP) performed by one surgeon since 1986 are reviewed. Ulcerative colitis (23) and idiopathic megarectum (2) were the indications for surgery. The initial seven patients had a submucosal proctectomy and transanal hand sewn pouch-anal anastomosis. Eighteen patients had a totally stapled RP. One patient with malignancy died from factors unrelated to surgery. Complications developed in eight patients after pouch-anal anastomosis and in four patients after ileostomy closure. There was one pouch failure due to pelvic sepsis. No pelvic sepsis has occurred following a stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis with defunctioning ileostomy. After a mean follow up period of 20.5 months all patients are continent (mean stool frequency = 4/day and 0.5/night). Soiling occurred in three patients who had a transanal hand sewn pouch-anal anastomosis. All patients in the stapled group have satisfactory control. Restorative proctocolectomy produces satisfactory operative and functional results which have improved as our experience has increased.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1992

Restorative proctocolectomy in patients after previous intestinal or anal surgery.

Restorative proctocolectomy is now established as the procedure of choice in many patients with ulcerative colitis or familial polyposis coli as well as in some patients with multiple colorectal tumors, ischemia, trauma, or congenital abnormalities. Some patients, however, may have had previous pelvic, abdominal, or perineal surgery, which might be considered a contraindication to restorative proctocolectomy. In a consecutive series of 73 private patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy under one surgeon, we have reviewed in detail 13 who had had previous "significant" abdominal, pelvic, or anal surgery. Eight patients had previously had surgery for fistula-in-ano or fissure-in-ano, two had had an anal sphincter repair, and three had undergone possibly compromising abdominal or pelvic surgery prior to restorative proctocolectomy. Twelve of the 13 made an uncomplicated recovery from restorative proctocolectomy, although one has since died from carcinomatosis. One patient died after closure of an ileostomy from a combination of enterocutaneous fistula, infection, bleeding, and a perforated duodenal ulcer. One patient developed sepsis, necessitating removal of the pouch, and is classified as a failure. Two of the remaining 11 have had minor long-term functional problems with nocturnal fecal incontinence, and one patient needs to catheterize the pouch to evacuate, but all three patients prefer a pouch to an ileostomy. Restorative proctocolectomy can be performed successfully even after previous pelvic, abdominal, or anal surgery with an acceptable complication rate when compared with pouch surgery in the uncompromised patient.

Anal Canal↗
PubMed1992

One-stage restorative proctocolectomy without temporary defunctioning ileostomy.

A temporary ileostomy has been employed routinely by most medical centers to defunction the ileal reservoir after restorative proctocolectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome in patients who underwent restorative proctocolectomy with and without the use of a temporary, defunctioning ileostomy. A consecutive series of 58 patients was studied. Each patient underwent restorative proctocolectomy with quadruplicated ileal reservoir and stapled pouch-anal anastomosis, without mucosectomy; 28 had a temporary, defunctioning ileostomy and 30 did not. The decision for or against an ileostomy was taken at the end of the operation. The two groups of patients were similar in age and sex distribution. There was no postoperative mortality. There were no significant differences in the incidence of pelvic sepsis, anastomotic stricture, and intestinal obstruction in patients without an ileostomy compared with patients with an ileostomy. The total length of stay in hospital after the operation was significantly reduced in the group of patients without an ileostomy (P less than 0.01). The avoidance of a temporary ileostomy did not lead to an increase in postoperative complications and was associated with a shorter length of stay in hospital after restorative proctocolectomy.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Anal canal mucosa in restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis.

In an attempt to improve continence after restorative proctocolectomy, ileal reservoir-anal anastomosis at the level of the anorectal junction has been advocated. This procedure preserves the entire mucosa of the anal canal. The histological appearances of the anal mucosa have been examined in 16 consecutive patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. In 14 patients there was chronic inflammation characteristic of ulcerative colitis. Four patients had moderate dysplasia and in one of these patients an unsuspected adenocarcinoma of the anal canal extending down to the level of the dentate line was present. We believe that the anal mucosa should always be removed down to the level of the dentate line in restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis.

Anal Canal↗
PubMed1992

Temporary loop ileostomy following restorative proctocolectomy.

A retrospective study compared the outcome of restorative proctocolectomy in patients who had a covering ileostomy (n = 53) with those who had no proximal stoma (n = 32). Those who had a loop ileostomy had a higher incidence of anastomotic leakage (21 per cent), pelvic abscess (32 per cent) and postoperative fistula (28 per cent) than those with no covering ileostomy (6, 12 and 12 per cent respectively). Intestinal obstruction occurred in 23 per cent of those with an ileostomy, compared with 6 per cent in those who had no stoma. The functional outcome was identical.

Abscess↗
PubMed1988

Restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis.

The results of 36 restorative proctocolectomies (with 2-loop reservoir) for ulcerative colitis (UC) performed in a three-year period were surveyed. These patients represented 69% of all those undergoing definitive surgery for UC at the same time at our department. There was no operative mortality. Both early (44.4%) and late complications (45.2%) were quite common, but they were mostly minor and only two were permanent failures (5.6%) requiring construction of conventional ileostomy. Anastomotic retraction and sinus formation (25%), as revealed by pouch x-ray, were the most frequent early complications, occurring in a lesser degree (19.4%) also after stoma closure. Pouchitis was also a common (20%) late complication, but usually resolved promptly with metronidazole treatment. The functional results in the 23 patients evaluated were satisfactory, with a mean defaecation frequency of 5.4 per 24 hour and a minor soiling frequency of 36%. None of the patients had to wear a pad. The over-all results are compatible to those from other centres and suggest that acceptable anal function follows restorative proctocolectomy in most suitable cases with UC. The role of adequate surgical experience and consideration of contraindications must, however, be emphasised, and the surgeon must be ready to handle many minor and even major complications.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1991

Comparison of morbidity and function after colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis or restorative proctocolectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis.

Restorative proctocolectomy with an ileal reservoir (RPC) should prevent colorectal cancer in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Until this is confirmed its role compared with total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) will depend on the relative morbidity and postoperative bowel function after the two procedures. This was analysed in 99 patients (37 RPC, 62 IRA) operated on between 1977 and 1989. Morbidity was greater after RPC with subsequent ileostomy closure (median hospital stay, 24 versus 11 days; complications, 60 versus 21 per cent; reoperation, 29 versus 3 per cent; return to normal activity; 31 versus 14 weeks). There was little difference in bowel function; after IRA median frequency was 3/24 h and urgency (unable to wait 15 min) occurred in 50 per cent, compared with 4.5/24h and 17 per cent after RPC. Night evacuation occurred in 10 and 43 per cent respectively. IRA was performed in younger patients (median 19 versus 31 years) who had fewer bowel motions before operation (2 versus 5/24 h). The greater morbidity of RPC suggests that it should be restricted to patients at higher risk of developing later rectal cancer, including those unavailable for follow-up and those with large or confluent rectal polyps or with curable colon cancer at the initial colectomy.

Adenomatous Polyposis Coli↗
PubMed1991

[Restorative proctocolectomy].

Indications and procedures of restorative proctocolectomy in the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis and familial polyposis are reported. Surgical procedure and some technical innovations are discussed.

Adenomatous Polyposis Coli↗
PubMed1992

Restorative proctocolectomy--the pouch operation: good or bad?

Restorative proctocolectomy is now the procedure of choice for patients requiring surgery for ulcerative colitis and some for familial adenomatosis. The indications for operation are being refined, and technically the procedure has been simplified. Although it avoids ileostomy, it does not restore normality. Stool frequency, continence problems, and pouchitis can all spoil a good result. In spite of these shortcomings, it represents a major advance.

Adenomatous Polyposis Coli↗
PubMed1992

Randomized trial of loop ileostomy in restorative proctocolectomy.

A randomized controlled trial was performed to assess the role of loop ileostomy in totally stapled restorative proctocolectomy. Entry criteria included all patients who were not on corticosteroids in whom on-table testing revealed a watertight pouch with intact ileoanal anastomosis. Of 59 patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy over 36 months, 45 were eligible and were randomized to loop ileostomy (n = 23) or no ileostomy (n = 22). The age and diagnosis of the groups were similar. There were no deaths; two ileoanal anastomotic leaks occurred, one in each group. Ileoanal stenosis occurred in five patients with and one without an ileostomy. The incidences of wound and pelvic sepsis, bowel obstruction and pouchitis were similar. Twelve patients (52 per cent) developed ileostomy-related complications. The median total hospital stay was 23 (range 13-75) days with ileostomy and 13 (range 7-119) days without (P < 0.001). This study indicates that there is a low risk of pelvic sepsis which is not increased by avoiding a protective ileostomy. Loop ileostomy was associated with a high incidence of complications.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1988

Clinical and functional results after restorative proctocolectomy.

Of 84 patients who underwent restorative proctocolectomy with an ileoanal reservoir in 21 Italian departments of surgery, 51 had ulcerative colitis, 32 familial polyposis and 1 intractable constipation. Follow-up information is available for all 58 patients who had their ileostomy closed, the length of follow-up ranging between 2 and 78 months. There were no operative deaths. A failure rate (i.e. excision of the pouch) of 3 per cent was observed. Sepsis was the most common postoperative complication, and was most often related to ileoanal anastomosis dehiscence (15 per cent), followed by small-bowel obstruction requiring laparotomy (10 per cent). Clinical 'pouchitis' occurred in 14 per cent of patients after ileostomy closure. The average frequency of defaecation was four motions per 24 h; evacuation was spontaneous in all patients and only 5 per cent complained of troublesome faecal soiling while 34 per cent had occasional incontinence to flatus and mucus. Patients with a short or absent rectal cuff had a lower rate of incontinence (30 versus 48 per cent, difference not statistically significant) without any increase in the frequency of genito-urinary disorders. None of the two most used reservoirs, the J (n = 40) and S pouch (n = 17) showed significant superiority in terms of bowel frequency and continence. Incontinence was more likely in patients whose ileostomy closure had been delayed for more than one year.

Adenomatous Polyposis Coli↗