| 1. |
- Abdalla, Maie, et al.
(författare)
-
Anorectal Function After Ileo-Rectal Anastomosis Is Better than Pelvic Pouch in Selected Ulcerative Colitis Patients
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Digestive Diseases and Sciences. - : Springer-Verlag New York. - 0163-2116 .- 1573-2568. ; , s. 250-259
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: With a lifelong perspective, 12% of ulcerative colitis patients will need a colectomy. Further reconstruction via ileo-rectal anastomosis or pouch can be affected by patients' perspective of their quality of life after surgery.AIM: To assess the function and quality of life after restorative procedures with either ileo-rectal anastomosis or ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in relation to the inflammatory activity on endoscopy and in biopsies.METHOD: A total of 143 UC patients operated with subtotal colectomy and ileo-rectal anastomosis or pouches between 1992 and 2006 at Linköping University Hospital were invited to participate. Those who completed the validated questionnaires (Öresland score, SF-36, Short Health Scale) were offered an endoscopic evaluation including multiple biopsies. Associations between anorectal function and quality of life with type of restorative procedure and severity of endoscopic and histopathologic grading of inflammation were evaluated.RESULTS: Some 77 (53.9%) eligible patients completed questionnaires, of these 68 (88.3%) underwent endoscopic evaluation after a median follow-up of 12.5 (range 3.5-19.4) years after restorative procedure. Patients with ileo-rectal anastomosis reported better overall Öresland score: median = 3 (IQR 2-5) for ileo-rectal anastomosis (n = 38) and 10 (IQR 5-15) for pouch patients (n = 39) (p < 0.001). Anorectal function (Öresland score) and endoscopic findings (Baron-Ginsberg score) were positively correlated in pouch patients (tau: 0.28, p = 0.006).CONCLUSION: Patients operated with ileo-rectal anastomosis reported better continence compared to pouches. Minor differences were noted regarding the quality of life. Ileo-rectal anastomosis is a valid option for properly selected ulcerative colitis patients if strict postoperative endoscopic surveillance is carried out.
|
|
| 2. |
- Abdalla, Maie
(författare)
-
Cancer and reconstructive surgery in Inflammatory bowel disease
- 2019
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the colon. According to the literature, some thirty percent of UC patients may require a subtotal colectomy and ileostomy due to failure of medical treatment, acute toxic colitis or dysplasia/cancer diagnosis. Some patients choose to get continence restored with either an ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) or an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). Worldwide most surgeons prefer an IPAA to an IRA, despite reports of pouchitis, impaired fertility and fecundity. Fear of recurring proctitis and fear of rectal cancer in the remaining rectum is contributing to the choice of an IPAA. Little is known regarding the outcomes of IRA compared with IPAA in UC patients. We aimed to investigate the anorectal function, quality of life (QoL), risk of failure and rectal cancer in patients with UC restored with IRA and IPAA respectively. Methods: Data about all Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients was obtained from the Swedish National Patient Register (NPR) between 1964-2014 and in one study from the Linköping University Hospital medical records 2006-2012. Patients who developed cancer were identified from the Swedish National Cancer Register. We investigated the risk of cancer and inflammation, functional outcome and failure as well as the quality of life for IRA and IPAA patients. Investigation of risk for cancer in IRA and IPAA compared with the background population was performed using survival analytic techniques: uni-and multivariate regression, Kaplan Meier curves and standardized incidence ratio. Results: Twelve percent (7,889 /63,795) of UC patients required colectomy according to the NPR. The relative risk for rectal cancer among patients with an IRA was increased (SIR 8.7). However, the absolute risk was 1.8% after a mean follow up of 8.6 years and the cumulative risk 10- and 20-years after IRA was 1.6% and 5.6%, respectively. Risk factors for rectal cancer were primary sclerosing cholangitis in patients with an IRA (hazard ratio 6.12), and severe dysplasia or cancer of the colon prior to subtotal colectomy in patients with a diverted rectum in place (hazard ratio 3.67). Regarding IPAA, the relative risk to develop rectal cancer was (SIR 0.4) compared with the background population and the absolute risk was only 0.06% after a mean of 12.2 years of follow up. Among patients operated at the Linköping University Hospital: IRA patients reported better overall continence according to the Öresland score with in median3 (IQR 2–5) for IRA (n=38) and 10 (IQR 5–15) for IPAA (n=39, p<0.001). There were no major differences regarding the QoL. According to the NPR, after a median follow up of 12.4 years failure occurred in 265(32%) out of 1112 patients, of which 76 were secondarily reconstructed with an IPAA. Failure of the IPAA occurred in 103 (6%) patients with primary and in 6 (8%) patients after secondary IPAA (log-rank p=0.38). Conclusion: IRA is a safe restorative procedure for selected UC patients. Patients should be aware of the annual postoperative endoscopic evaluation with biopsies as well as the need to the use of local anti-inflammatory preparations. However, IRA should not be offered for UC patients with an associated primary sclerosing cholangitis diagnosis due to the increased risk to develop rectal cancer in their rectal mucosa. In such case, IPAA is probably the treatment of choice.
|
|
