Modified two-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: Equivalent outcomes with less resource utilization

Brian R. Swenson, Christopher S. Hollenbeak, Lisa Poritz, Walter Koltun

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: A three-stage operative approach to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is usually undertaken in patients presenting with severe colitis. Increasingly, however, we have performed a two-stage modified ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (colectomy followed by ileal pouch-anal anastomosis without ileostomy). The present study sought to evaluate the safety, results, cost, and length of hospital stay using this modified approach compared to that of the traditional three-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. METHODS: Clinical and financial data were gathered by retrospective review of patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis at our institution since 1995. Complications were defined as any event prolonging hospitalization or requiring readmission and were included in the analysis up to six months after final surgery. Functional performance was assessed as of the last clinic visit. Data were compared with Student's t-test and chi-squared analysis. Multivariate analysis was also used to assess risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients who underwent the two-stage modified procedure and 31 patients who had the three-stage procedure were identified. The two groups were found to be statistically comparable in terms of patient age, gender, duration of illness, and preoperative hematocrit. Follow-up was shorter in the modified group because of its more recent introduction (9.7 months vs. 30.5 months mean follow-up). Ninety-five percent of patients were on immunosuppressive medication before colectomy, but all were off it before the reconstruction. clinical outcomes after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis were equivalent in terms of the number of bowel movements, prevalence of fecal incontinence, and the use of hypomotility medications. No patients with the two-stage modified procedure had anastomotic complications requiring stoma creation. One patient in the three-stage group required re-creation of a stoma after stoma closure for perianal complications suggesting Crohn's disease. Total hospital cost was significantly less in the modified group: $27,270 vs. $38,184 (P = 0.0119). Length of stay was also shorter in the two-stage modified group although missing absolute statistical significance (21.0 days vs. 26.0 days, P = 0.0882). CONCLUSIONS: Interval ileal pouch-anal anastomosis reconstruction without a stoma (two-stage modified procedure) after colectomy is functionally equivalent to the traditional three-stage protocol in terms of clinical outcome. However, it has the advantage of overall lower hospital costs and probably a shorter length of hospital stay.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)256-261
Number of pages6
JournalDiseases of the colon and rectum
Volume48
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2005

Fingerprint

Colonic Pouches
Length of Stay
Colectomy
Hospital Costs
Ileostomy
Fecal Incontinence
Colitis
Immunosuppressive Agents
Ambulatory Care
Hematocrit
Crohn Disease
Hospitalization
Multivariate Analysis
Students
Safety
Costs and Cost Analysis

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

@article{c233944a214649bc9a6f39648041ba08,
title = "Modified two-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: Equivalent outcomes with less resource utilization",
abstract = "PURPOSE: A three-stage operative approach to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is usually undertaken in patients presenting with severe colitis. Increasingly, however, we have performed a two-stage modified ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (colectomy followed by ileal pouch-anal anastomosis without ileostomy). The present study sought to evaluate the safety, results, cost, and length of hospital stay using this modified approach compared to that of the traditional three-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. METHODS: Clinical and financial data were gathered by retrospective review of patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis at our institution since 1995. Complications were defined as any event prolonging hospitalization or requiring readmission and were included in the analysis up to six months after final surgery. Functional performance was assessed as of the last clinic visit. Data were compared with Student's t-test and chi-squared analysis. Multivariate analysis was also used to assess risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients who underwent the two-stage modified procedure and 31 patients who had the three-stage procedure were identified. The two groups were found to be statistically comparable in terms of patient age, gender, duration of illness, and preoperative hematocrit. Follow-up was shorter in the modified group because of its more recent introduction (9.7 months vs. 30.5 months mean follow-up). Ninety-five percent of patients were on immunosuppressive medication before colectomy, but all were off it before the reconstruction. clinical outcomes after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis were equivalent in terms of the number of bowel movements, prevalence of fecal incontinence, and the use of hypomotility medications. No patients with the two-stage modified procedure had anastomotic complications requiring stoma creation. One patient in the three-stage group required re-creation of a stoma after stoma closure for perianal complications suggesting Crohn's disease. Total hospital cost was significantly less in the modified group: $27,270 vs. $38,184 (P = 0.0119). Length of stay was also shorter in the two-stage modified group although missing absolute statistical significance (21.0 days vs. 26.0 days, P = 0.0882). CONCLUSIONS: Interval ileal pouch-anal anastomosis reconstruction without a stoma (two-stage modified procedure) after colectomy is functionally equivalent to the traditional three-stage protocol in terms of clinical outcome. However, it has the advantage of overall lower hospital costs and probably a shorter length of hospital stay.",
author = "Swenson, {Brian R.} and Hollenbeak, {Christopher S.} and Lisa Poritz and Walter Koltun",
year = "2005",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10350-004-0848-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "48",
pages = "256--261",
journal = "Diseases of the Colon and Rectum",
issn = "0012-3706",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

Modified two-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis : Equivalent outcomes with less resource utilization. / Swenson, Brian R.; Hollenbeak, Christopher S.; Poritz, Lisa; Koltun, Walter.

In: Diseases of the colon and rectum, Vol. 48, No. 2, 01.02.2005, p. 256-261.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Modified two-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis

T2 - Equivalent outcomes with less resource utilization

AU - Swenson, Brian R.

AU - Hollenbeak, Christopher S.

AU - Poritz, Lisa

AU - Koltun, Walter

PY - 2005/2/1

Y1 - 2005/2/1

N2 - PURPOSE: A three-stage operative approach to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is usually undertaken in patients presenting with severe colitis. Increasingly, however, we have performed a two-stage modified ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (colectomy followed by ileal pouch-anal anastomosis without ileostomy). The present study sought to evaluate the safety, results, cost, and length of hospital stay using this modified approach compared to that of the traditional three-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. METHODS: Clinical and financial data were gathered by retrospective review of patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis at our institution since 1995. Complications were defined as any event prolonging hospitalization or requiring readmission and were included in the analysis up to six months after final surgery. Functional performance was assessed as of the last clinic visit. Data were compared with Student's t-test and chi-squared analysis. Multivariate analysis was also used to assess risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients who underwent the two-stage modified procedure and 31 patients who had the three-stage procedure were identified. The two groups were found to be statistically comparable in terms of patient age, gender, duration of illness, and preoperative hematocrit. Follow-up was shorter in the modified group because of its more recent introduction (9.7 months vs. 30.5 months mean follow-up). Ninety-five percent of patients were on immunosuppressive medication before colectomy, but all were off it before the reconstruction. clinical outcomes after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis were equivalent in terms of the number of bowel movements, prevalence of fecal incontinence, and the use of hypomotility medications. No patients with the two-stage modified procedure had anastomotic complications requiring stoma creation. One patient in the three-stage group required re-creation of a stoma after stoma closure for perianal complications suggesting Crohn's disease. Total hospital cost was significantly less in the modified group: $27,270 vs. $38,184 (P = 0.0119). Length of stay was also shorter in the two-stage modified group although missing absolute statistical significance (21.0 days vs. 26.0 days, P = 0.0882). CONCLUSIONS: Interval ileal pouch-anal anastomosis reconstruction without a stoma (two-stage modified procedure) after colectomy is functionally equivalent to the traditional three-stage protocol in terms of clinical outcome. However, it has the advantage of overall lower hospital costs and probably a shorter length of hospital stay.

AB - PURPOSE: A three-stage operative approach to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is usually undertaken in patients presenting with severe colitis. Increasingly, however, we have performed a two-stage modified ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (colectomy followed by ileal pouch-anal anastomosis without ileostomy). The present study sought to evaluate the safety, results, cost, and length of hospital stay using this modified approach compared to that of the traditional three-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. METHODS: Clinical and financial data were gathered by retrospective review of patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis at our institution since 1995. Complications were defined as any event prolonging hospitalization or requiring readmission and were included in the analysis up to six months after final surgery. Functional performance was assessed as of the last clinic visit. Data were compared with Student's t-test and chi-squared analysis. Multivariate analysis was also used to assess risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients who underwent the two-stage modified procedure and 31 patients who had the three-stage procedure were identified. The two groups were found to be statistically comparable in terms of patient age, gender, duration of illness, and preoperative hematocrit. Follow-up was shorter in the modified group because of its more recent introduction (9.7 months vs. 30.5 months mean follow-up). Ninety-five percent of patients were on immunosuppressive medication before colectomy, but all were off it before the reconstruction. clinical outcomes after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis were equivalent in terms of the number of bowel movements, prevalence of fecal incontinence, and the use of hypomotility medications. No patients with the two-stage modified procedure had anastomotic complications requiring stoma creation. One patient in the three-stage group required re-creation of a stoma after stoma closure for perianal complications suggesting Crohn's disease. Total hospital cost was significantly less in the modified group: $27,270 vs. $38,184 (P = 0.0119). Length of stay was also shorter in the two-stage modified group although missing absolute statistical significance (21.0 days vs. 26.0 days, P = 0.0882). CONCLUSIONS: Interval ileal pouch-anal anastomosis reconstruction without a stoma (two-stage modified procedure) after colectomy is functionally equivalent to the traditional three-stage protocol in terms of clinical outcome. However, it has the advantage of overall lower hospital costs and probably a shorter length of hospital stay.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=17744371327&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=17744371327&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10350-004-0848-9

DO - 10.1007/s10350-004-0848-9

M3 - Review article

C2 - 15711857

AN - SCOPUS:17744371327

VL - 48

SP - 256

EP - 261

JO - Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

JF - Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

SN - 0012-3706

IS - 2

ER -