Pouch failures following restorative proctocolectomy in ulcerative colitis

18Citations
Citations of this article
34Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: Restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) is the most common operation in ulcerative colitis. Nevertheless, permanent ileostomy will sometimes be unavoidable. The aim was to evaluate the reasons for pouch failure and early morbidity after pouch excision. Methods: The number and the reasons for pouch failures were analysed in patients undergoing RPC 1985-2016. Results: Out of 491 RPC patients, 53 experienced pouch failure (10 women, 43 men); 52 out of 53 underwent pouch excision. The cumulative risk for excision at 5, 10 and 20 years was 5.6, 9.4 and 15.5%, respectively. The reasons for failure included septic events such as fistula in 12 (23%), chronic pouchitis in 11 (21%) and leakage in 8 (15%) patients. Functional reasons for pouch failure were recorded as poor function in 16 (30%), incontinence in 12 (23%) and stricture in 12 (23%) patients. Multiple causes for pouch failure were recorded for individual patients. Seven cases of Crohn’s disease were found among the failure cases: two before pouch excision and five after. Altogether, 15 Crohn’s disease diagnoses were set in the RPC cohort, giving a percentage of 47% of pouch failure in this disorder. A complication occurred in 23 (44%) patients within 30 days after surgery; 16 were mild (Clavien-Dindo grades I–II). Conclusions: Eleven percent of RPC patients suffered pouch failure: more men than women. The reasons were multiple. Crohn’s disease created a risk of failure, but a half of these patients maintained the pouch. Morbidity after pouch excision was moderate, but in most cases slight.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Helavirta, I., Lehto, K., Huhtala, H., Hyöty, M., Collin, P., & Aitola, P. (2020). Pouch failures following restorative proctocolectomy in ulcerative colitis. International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 35(11), 2027–2033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-020-03680-1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free