伴或不伴暂时性回肠造口的复原性结肠直肠切除术的预后

PURPOSE: Controversy exists regarding the safety for omission of diverting ileostomy in restorative proctocolectomy because of fears of increased septic complications. This study was designed to evaluate the outcomes of restorative proctocolectomy in a consecutive series of patients by comparing postoperative complications, functional results, and quality of life in patients with and without diverting ileostomy. METHODS: Data regarding demograph- ics, length of stay, surgical characteristics, and complications were reviewed and recorded according to the presence (n= 1,725) or absence (n = 277) of a diverting ileostomy at the time of pelvic pouch surgery. Criteria for omission of ileostomy included: stapled anastomosis, tension-free anastomosis, intact tissue rings, good hemostasis, absence of airleaks, malnutrition, toxicity, anemia, and prolonged consumption of steroids. Functional outcome and quality of life indicators were prospectively recorded and compared. RESULTS: Patients in the ileostomy group had greater body surface area and older mean age at time of surgery, were taking greater doses of steroids preoperatively, and required more blood transfusions at the time of surgery compared with the one-stage (P < 0.05). There were no differences between the two groups in septic complications (P > 0.05). Early postoperative ileus was more common in the one-stage group (P < 0.001). There were no differences between the groups in quality of life and functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: For carefully selected patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, omission of diverting ileost- omy is a safe procedure that does not lead to an increase inseptic complications or mortality. Quality of life and functional results are similar to those who undergo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis with diversion, provided that certain selection factors are considered.

评估一种治疗憩室病的非复原性切除术的风险:克立夫兰临床憩室病倾向评分

PURPOSE: The choice of operation for diverticular disease is a contentious issue, particularly in patients with acute symptoms. This study compares early outcomes between primary resection and anastomosis and Hartmann’s resection and describes a propensity score for the selection of patients for nonrestorative procedures. METHODS: Data were collected from 731 patients undergoing primary resection and anastomosis (Group 1) and 123 patients undergoing primary Hartmann’s resection (Group 2) for diverticular disease in a single tertiary referral center from January 1981 to May 2003. Multifactorial logistic regression was used to develop a propensity score for estimating the likelihood of performing a nonrestorative procedure. RESULTS: Operative 30-day mortality and surgical or medical complications were 0.7 percent, 26.0 percent, and 4.8 percent for primary resection and anastomosis and 12 percent, 43.9 percent, and 14.6 percent for Hartmann’s resection, respectively (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the readmission rates between primary resection and anastomosis and Hartmann’s resection (7.6 percent vs. 9.9 percent, P = 0.428). Laparoscopy was used for 32.7 percent of primary resection and anastomosis vs. 1.6 percent for Hartmann’s resection (P < 0.001). Independent predictors in favor for Hartmann’s resection were body mass index ≥30 kg/m2(odd’s ratio = 2.32), Mannheim peritonitis index > 10 (odd’s ratio = 6.75), operative urgency (emergency, urgent vs. elective surgery, odd’s ratio = 16.08 vs. 13.32), and Hinchey stage >II (odd’s ratio = 27.82). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the choice of operative procedure was 93.9 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Although Hartmann’s resection was associated with a higher incidence of postoperative adverse events, the choice of operation was dependent on the patient presentation and intra-abdominal contamination, which can be quantified in the preoperative setting by the Cleveland Clinic diverticulitis propensity score.

Hartmann手术与术后不良事件的相关性研究

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to ascertain the prevalence and pattern of surgical and medical adverse events in patients undergoing Hartmann’s reversal for diverticular disease. A comparison of postoperative outcomes is made between Hartmann’s reversal and primary resection and anastomosis. METHODS: Data were collected from patients who underwent successful Hartmann’s reversal (Group 1, n = 121) and primary resection and anastomosis (Group 2, n = 731) for diverticular disease in a single center from January 1981 to May 2003. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare early postoperative mortality, medical and surgical complications and readmission rates between the two groups. RESULTS: Hartmann’s reversal was associated with a higher prevalence of surgical or medical complications compared with primary resection and anastomosis (43.8 percent and 9.1 percent for Hartmann’s reversal vs. 26.0 percent and 4.8 percent for primary resection and anastomosis). There was no difference in the readmission rates (7.2 percent vs. 7.6 percent, respectively, P = 0.88) or early postoperative mortality (1.7 percent vs. 0.7 percent, P = 0.25) between Hartmann’s reversal and primary resection and anastomosis. The need for reoperation, prolonged ileus, respiratory tract infections, and renal failure were more common adverse events in the Hartmann’s reversal group (P < 0.01). Having controlled for the number of comorbid conditions, extent of diverticular disease, severity of peritoneal contamination (Mannheim Peritonitis Index), and operative urgency, patients who underwent Hartmann’s reversal were 2.1 times more likely to have adverse surgical events during their postoperative period (95 percent confidence interval for odds ratio = 1.3-3.3). CONCLUSIONS: Hartmann’s reversal is a complex surgical procedure that is associated with a high prevalence of postoperative adverse events in comparison with primary resection and anastomosis. To minimize the prevalence of such adverse events, patients who undergo Hartmann’s reversal need careful preoperative evaluation and close monitoring in their postoperative period.

克罗恩病患者行回肠袋-肛门吻合术的疗效分析

PURPOSE: Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis has come to represent the procedure of choice for patients requiring surgery for mucosal ulcerative colitis. In contrast, a proven diagnosis of Crohn’s disease is generally held to preclude ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. However, patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for apparent mucosal ulcerative colitis who are subsequently found to have Crohn’s disease have a variable course. We reviewed our experience in this scenario to determine whether selected patients with Crohn’s disease may be candidates for ileal pouchanal anastomosis. METHODS: A retrospective review of the prospectively maintained ileal pouch-anal anastomosis database was undertaken to identify patients with a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Clinical outcome and quality-of-life data were obtained from the database and chart review. End points were the development of recrudescent Crohn’s disease, pouch failure, and quality of life and functional outcome at the time of data collection. Differences between groups were calculated using the chisquared test. Cumulative incidence of recrudescent Crohn’s disease and pouch loss were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors predictive of development of recrudescent Crohn’s disease and pouch loss were examined by univariate analysis. RESULTS: Sixty patients (32 females; median age, 33 (range, 15-74) years) who underwent ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for mucosal ulcerative colitis subsequently had that diagnosis revised to Crohn’s disease. Median follow-up of all patients was 46 (range, 4-158) months at time of data collection by which time 21 patients (35 percent) had developed recrudescent Crohn’s disease. No pre-ileal pouch-anal anastomosis factors examined were predictors of the development of recrudescent Crohn’s disease on univariate analysis. Median follow-up of the latter group was 63 (range, 0-132) months from time of diagnosis, by which time six patients underwent pouch excision and another patient was permanently defunctioned. The overall pouch loss rate for the entire cohort was 12 percent and 33 percent for those with recrudescent Crohn’s disease. Median daily bowel movements in those with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in situ at the time of data collection was 7 (range, 3-20), with 50 percent of patients rarely or never experiencing urgency and 59 percent reporting perfect or near perfect continence. Median quality of life, health, and happiness scores were 9.9 and 10 of 10. CONCLUSIONS: The secondary diagnosis of Crohn’s disease after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is associated with protracted freedom from clinically evident Crohn’s disease, low pouch loss rate, and good functional outcome. Such results only can be improved by the continued development of medical strategies for the long-term suppression of Crohn’s disease. These data support a prospective evaluation of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in selected patients with Crohn’s disease.

幼年性结肠息肉综合征患者的结肠手术:一组病例研究

PURPOSE: Juvenile polyposis syndrome is characterized by multiple hamartomatous polyps in the large intestine. When indicated, the surgical choices in symptomatic juvenile polyposis syndrome patients are colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis or proctocolectomy with pouch. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of the surgical options in juvenile polyposis syndrome patients who present with symptomatic colonic polyps. METHODS: The charts of all juvenile polyposis syndrome patients who had had at least one colonic operation since 1953 in our institution were reviewed. The following data were abstracted: demographics, the number and site of the polyps, symptoms, the intervals and types of the colonic operation, follow-up, and the patients’current status. RESULTS: There were 13 patients (6 males) with a median age of 10 years (range, 1-50 years) at the time of diagnosis. Patients had colonic (n = 13), rectal (n = 12), and gastric (n = 6) polyps. Rectal bleeding (n = 11) was the most common presenting symptom. Three patients underwent proctectomy as the initial operation. Although a rectum-preserving operation was initially performed in ten patients, a subsequent proctectomy was required in five of them within a median of 9 years (range, 6-34 years). Therefore, eight patients had their rectum removed during the study period; five had an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, one had a Koch pouch as a restorative surgery, and two had an end ileostomy. No relation was observed between the number of colonic and rectal polyps and the type of surgery or the need for proctectomy. Patients were followed up a median of 3 years (range, 2-24 years) after their ultimate operations. During this period, one patient (20 percent) who underwent restorative proctectomy and 4 patients (80 percent)-whose rectums were preserved required multiple endoscopic polypectomies for recurrent polyps in the pouch (first patient)-or their rectums (the other four patients). The patient who underwent the Koch procedure required surgery for recurrent polyps in her pouch. CONCLUSIONS: One-half of the patients who initially underwent rectal preservation required subsequent proctectomy. The number of colonic or rectal polyps does not influence the choice of the surgical procedure. Both restorative proctocolectomy and subtotal colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis need endoscopic follow-up because of the high recurrence rates of juvenile polyps in the remnant rectum or pouch.

回肠袋-直肠吻合术后的阴道分娩:一个警示

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the impact of childbirth on anal sphincter integrity and function, functional outcome, and quality of life in females with restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch- anal anastomosis. METHODS: The patients who had at least one live birth after ileal pouch- anal anastomosis were asked to return for a comprehensive assessment. They were asked to complete the following questionnaires: the Short Form- 36, Cleveland Global Quality of Life scale, American Society of Colorectal Surgeons fecal incontinence severity index, and time trade- off method. Additionally, anal sphincter integrity (endosonography) and manometric pressures were measured by a medical physician blinded to the delivery technique. Anal sphincter physiology also was evaluated with electromyography and pudendal nerve function by nerve terminal motor latency technique. RESULTS: Of 110 eligible females who had at least one live birth after ileal pouch- anal anastomosis, 57 participated in the study by returning for clinical evaluation to the clinic and 25 others by returning the quality of life and functional outcome questionnaires. Patients were classified into two groups: patients who had only cesarean section delivery after ileal pouch- anal anastomosis (n = 62) and patients who had at least one vaginal delivery after ileal pouch- anal anastomosis (n = 20). The mean follow- up from the date of the most recent delivery was 4.9 years. The vaginal delivery group had significantly higher incidence of an anterior sphincter defect by anal endosonography (50 percent)vs. cesarean section delivery group (13 percent; P = 0.012). The mean squeeze anal pressure was significantly higher in the patients who had only cesarean section delivery (150 mmHg)after restorative proctocolectomy than patients who had at least one vaginal delivery (120 mmHg) after restorative proctocolectomy (P = 0.049). Quality of life evaluated by time trade- off method also was significantly better in the cesarean section delivery group (1) vs. vaginal delivery group (0.9; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of the sphincter injury and quality of life measured by time trade- off method are significantly worse after vaginal delivery compared with cesarean section in patients with ileal pouch- anal anastomosis. In the short- term, this does not seem to substantially influence pouch function or quality of life; however, the long- term effects remain unknown, thus obstetric concern may not be the only factor dictating the type of delivery in this group of patients. A planned cesarean section may eliminate these potential and factual concerns in ileal pouch- anal anastomosis patients.