4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Perioperative resting pressure predicts long-term postoperative function after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 6, Issue 3, Pages 316-320

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1091-255X(01)00072-5

Keywords

ileal pouch; manometry; function; incontinence; anastomosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to determine whether perioperative manometry is useful in predicting long-term functional status after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). Prospectively collected perioperative anal manometry data from 1439 patients undergoing IPAA from 1986 to 2000 were compared to postoperative furictional status at various time intervals from 6 months to 8 years after IPAA. A validated questionnaire was used to obtain information regarding restrictions of diet, work, social and sexual activity, urgency, fecal seepage or incontinence, energy level, satisfaction with surgery, and quality of life. The presence of seepage and the degree of incontinence were compared to the patient's perceived quality of life, health, energy level, and satisfaction with surgery. Low (<40 min Hg) pre- and postoperative resting pressures were associated with increased seepage, pad use, and incontinence. Patients with low resting pressures also reported diminished quality of life, health, energy level, and satisfaction with surgery. There was a significant association (P < 0.001) between seepage and degree of incontinence and quality of health, quality of life, energy level, and level of satisfaction with surgery. Perioperative resting anal sphincter pressures greater than 40 min Hg are associated with significantly better function and quality of life after ileal. TPAA. Improved functional outcome is associated with better quality-of-life outcomes. Low preoperative resting pressures do not preclude successful outcome after IPAA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available