Ileorectal anastomosis in comparison with ileal pouch anal anastomosis in reconstructive surgery for ulcerative colitis--a single institution experience.

INTRODUCTION

Ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the standard procedure for reconstruction after colectomy for ulcerative colitis (UC). However, ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) as an alternative has, recently experienced a revival. This study from a single center compares the clinical outcomes of these procedures.

METHODS

From 1992 to 2006, 253 patients consecutively underwent either IRA (n=105) or IPAA (n=148). Selection to either procedure was determined on the basis of rectal inflammation, presence of dysplasia/cancer or patient preferences. Patient-records were retrospectively evaluated. Mean follow-up time was 5.4 and 6.3 years respectively.

RESULTS

Major postoperative complications occurred in 12.4% of patients after IRA and in 12.8% after IPAA (ns). Complications of any kind after IRA or IPAA, even including subsequent stoma-closure, occurred in 23.8% and 39.9% respectively (p<0.01). Estimated cumulative failure rates after 5 and 10 years were 10.1% and 24.1% for IRA and 6.1% and 18.6% for IPAA respectively (ns). The most common cause for failure was intractable proctitis (4.8%) and unspecified dysfunction (4.8%) respectively. At follow-up 76.9% of patients with IRA had proctitis and 34.1% with IPAA had pouchitis. Estimated cumulative cancer-risk after 10, 20 and 25 year duration of disease was 0.0%, 2.1% and 8.7% for IRA. Figures for IPAA were 0.7%, 1.8% and 1.8% (ns).

CONCLUSION

Failure-rates did not significantly differ between patients operated with IRA or IPAA. Patients operated with IPAA had a higher cumulative number of postoperative complications. The high long-term cancer-risk after IRA indicates that this procedure should be an interim solution in younger patients.