4.3 Article

Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis provides good functional and quality of life outcomes following proctocolectomy: A 33-year single centre experience

期刊

ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ans.18827

关键词

functional outcomes; ileal pouch anal anastomosis; quality of life; restorative proctocolectomy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the functional and quality of life outcomes of patients who underwent RP and IPAA surgery. The results showed that patients at our institution had excellent functional outcomes and quality of life, which were comparable to larger institutions.
Background Restorative proctocolectomy (RP) with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) remains the gold standard for the surgical management of patients with medically refractive mucosal ulcerative colitis. We aimed to identify functional and quality of life (QOL) outcomes in RP and IPAA surgery patients at our institution.Methods A retrospective observational study was performed including all patients who had undergone RP and IPAA between August 1984 and November 2017 at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH).Results 316 consecutive patients were identified, median age 39 (range 5 to 81) years. The median duration of disease was 60 (range 1 to 528) months. Ulcerative colitis was the main preoperative diagnosis with the main RP indication being failure of medical treatment. The median postoperative stay post-IPAA was 11 (range of 5 to 67) days. Pouchitis was the most common late complication (22.1%), bleeding pouch (3.5%) the earliest, with a 6.8% rate of symptomatic anastomotic leak. Visual analogue scale QOL measure (P-value <0.001), St Marks incontinence score (P-value = 0.001) and Cleveland clinic score (P-value = 0.002) all revealed significant improvement in functional outcomes and QOL.Conclusion QOL and functional outcomes following RP with IPAA in patients at our institution are excellent and comparable to institutions with larger patient numbers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据