4.7 Article

Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis Analysis of Outcome and Quality of Life in 3707 Patients

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 257, 期 4, 页码 679-685

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827d99a2

关键词

complications; ileal pouch; outcomes; quality of life

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the treatment of choice for chronic, medically refractory mucosal ulcerative colitis, indeterminate colitis, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), and a select group of patients with Crohn's disease. Aim: We report outcomes, complications, and quality of life (QOL) in a cohort of 3707 patients treated at our institution from January 1984 to March 2010. Methods: Data were collected from a prospectively maintained database and chart review of 3707 consecutive primary IPAA cases. Patient demographics, postoperative complications, functional outcomes, and QOL data were available. Follow-up consisted of clinical examination with assessment of pouch function and QOL. Results: Atotal of 3707 patients underwent primary pouch and 328 underwent redo pouch surgery. Postoperative histopathological diagnoses were mucosal ulcerative colitis (n = 2953, 79.7%), indeterminate colitis (n = 63, 1.7%), FAP (n = 223, 6%), Crohn's disease (n = 150, 4%), cancer/dysplasia (n = 97, 2.6%), and others (n = 221, 6.0%). Early perioperative complications were encountered in 33.5% of patients with a mortality rate of 0.1%. Excluding pouchitis, late complications were experienced by 29.1% of patients. Of those patients who had IPAA at our institution, pouch failure occurred in 197 patients (5.3%). During a median follow-up of 84 months, 119 patients (3.2%) required excision of the pouch, 32 (0.8%) had a nonfunctioning pouch, and 46 patients (1.2%) had redo IPAA. Functional outcomes and QOL were good or excellent in 95% of patients and similar in each histopathological subgroup. Conclusions: IPAA is an excellent option for patients with MUC, IC, FAP, and select patients with Crohn's disease.

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

4.7
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