Annals of surgery · 2015
Transabdominal Redo Ileal Pouch Surgery for Failed Restorative Proctocolectomy: Lessons Learned Over 500 Patients.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Remzi Feza H, Aytac Erman, Ashburn Jean, Gu Jinyu, Hull Tracy L, Dietz David W, Stocchi Luca, Church James M, Shen Bo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to report our large, single-center experience of transabdominal ileal pouch-anal anastomoses (IPAA) redo surgery for a failed initial IPAA.
BACKGROUND: IPAA fail from 3% to 15% of the times, mainly due to technical or inflammatory conditions. There is limited information about the surgical, functional, and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes of redo surgery for failed IPAA, especially in large series of patients.
METHODS: Patients undergoing transabdominal redo surgery for failed IPAA between 1983 and 2014 were evaluated. Primary endpoints were morbidity of the surgery, the proportion of patients with a functioning pouch, frequency of defecation and incidence of incontinence, and the patients' perception of QOL.
RESULTS: There were 502 (43% males) patients with a median age of 38 years and median body mass index 24 kg/m at the time of revision surgery. A new pouch was created in 41% of patients whereas 59% had their original pouch revised and retained. Postoperative mortality was 0% and morbidity was 53%. The short-term anastomotic leak rate was 8%. At a median follow-up of 7 years after redo surgery, 101 (n = 20%) patients had redo IPAA failure. Pelvic sepsis developing after redo ileal pouch surgery was the primary indicator of pouch failure (hazard ratio, 3.691; 95% confidence interval, 2.411-5.699; P < 0.0001). Overall functional outcomes and QOL scores were acceptable.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a failed ileoanal pouch may be offered redo pouch surgery with a high likelihood of success in terms of function and QOL.
BACKGROUND: IPAA fail from 3% to 15% of the times, mainly due to technical or inflammatory conditions. There is limited information about the surgical, functional, and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes of redo surgery for failed IPAA, especially in large series of patients.
METHODS: Patients undergoing transabdominal redo surgery for failed IPAA between 1983 and 2014 were evaluated. Primary endpoints were morbidity of the surgery, the proportion of patients with a functioning pouch, frequency of defecation and incidence of incontinence, and the patients' perception of QOL.
RESULTS: There were 502 (43% males) patients with a median age of 38 years and median body mass index 24 kg/m at the time of revision surgery. A new pouch was created in 41% of patients whereas 59% had their original pouch revised and retained. Postoperative mortality was 0% and morbidity was 53%. The short-term anastomotic leak rate was 8%. At a median follow-up of 7 years after redo surgery, 101 (n = 20%) patients had redo IPAA failure. Pelvic sepsis developing after redo ileal pouch surgery was the primary indicator of pouch failure (hazard ratio, 3.691; 95% confidence interval, 2.411-5.699; P < 0.0001). Overall functional outcomes and QOL scores were acceptable.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a failed ileoanal pouch may be offered redo pouch surgery with a high likelihood of success in terms of function and QOL.