Aim: Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) failure occurs in approximately 5%-10% of patients. We aimed to compare short-term (30-day) postoperative outcomes associated with pouch revision and pouch excision using a large international database. Our null hypothesis was that there is no statistically significant difference in overall postoperative complications between patients selected for pouch revision vs pouch excision.
Methods: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant User File from 2005 to 2016 we identified patients who underwent either IPAA revision via the combined abdominoperineal approach [Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 46712] or IPAA excision (CPT 45136). Differences in baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes between groups were assessed with univariate and matched analyses.
Results: We identified 593 reoperative IPAA procedures: revision group 78 (13%) and excision group 515 (86%). The groups had similar age and body mass index (kg/m2 ), but the revision group had more women (65.4% vs 51.8%, P = 0.02) and fewer were on chronic steroids (3.9% vs 17.9%, P = 0.0008) relative to the excision group. Revision IPAA patients were more likely to have received a preoperative transfusion (5.1% vs 0.97%, P = 0.02). Revision and excision were associated with similar postoperative length of stay (9.3 vs 8.6 days, 0.44), mortality (nil vs 0.58%, respectively; P = 0.99) and short-term morbidity (34.6% vs 40.2%, respectively; P = 0.88) at 30 days.
Conclusions: Pouch revision and excision have comparable short-term postoperative outcomes, but pouch excision appears to be more commonly utilized. Increased awareness of the indications for pouch revision or referral to specialized centres may improve pouch revision rates.
Keywords: Crohn's disease; excision; ileal pouch-anal anastomosis; revision; salvage; ulcerative colitis.
Colorectal Disease © 2018 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.