Laparoscopic Restorative Proctocolectomy in Adenomatus Patients

F. Campos
{"title":"Laparoscopic Restorative Proctocolectomy in Adenomatus Patients","authors":"F. Campos","doi":"10.17795/MINSURGERY-3677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I read with great interest the series presented by Bananzadeh et al. (1). This series includes a group of 19 patients who underwent laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) without ileostomy, performed by the same surgeon, to treat Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP) between October 2008 and May 2011. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is currently the standard surgical alternative for the majority of ulcerative colitis (UC) and FAP patients. Despite the complexity of the operation, IPAA is safe (mortality: 0.5–1%) and carries an acceptable risk of non-life-threatening complications (10–25%), achieving good long-term functional outcomes with excellent patient satisfaction (over 95%). During the last decade, the surgical technique has evolved significantly, mainly due to the growing incorporation of laparoscopic approaches. Because it is a complex technical procedure, a temporary ileostomy proximal to the ileal pouch has typically been performed (2). Thus, the most controversial aspect of the study discussed here being the omission of ileostomy in a series of laparoscopic surgeries. A protective ileostomy may reduce anastomosis leakage, prevent pelvic sepsis and fistulization, thus preserving pouch function. Consequently, it should also prevent the need for re-laparotomy and most importantly, pouch failure. The rationale for this decision is based on the fact that a protective ileostomy may limit the severity of septic complications, as the prevalence of pouch-related septic complications varies between 6% and 37% (2). Furthermore, most patients are able to accept this temporary stoma well, although it may be a source of complications after its construction or closure. These complications may include dehydration and metabolic disorders, peristomal irritation, anastomotic fistula, intestinal obstruction, and others (3). Although a protective ileostomy is still performed in the vast majority of series, its omission is associated with a similar rate of septic complications and may also provide economic advantages for select patients. By avoiding an ileostomy, the surgeon should prevent potential associated problems such as high output and complications of the stoma and its closure. Selection criteria for this choice should exclude clinical factors (high doses of steroids, malnutrition, toxicity or anemia) and technical factors (difficult procedures with intraoperative complications). Furthermore, surgeons must be sure that the ileoanal anastomosis is tension-free, that it is supplied with adequate blood flow, that the tissue rings are intact and that there are no air leaks (3, 4). Within this context, a German group studied 706 consecutive patients (494 UC, 212 FAP) in an attempt to identify subgroups of patients who were at high risk for pouch-relat* Corresponding author: Fabio Guilherme Campos, Gastroenterology Department, Colorectal Unit, Hospital das Clinicas, Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. E-mail: fgmcampos@terra.com.br","PeriodicalId":158928,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgical Sciences","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17795/MINSURGERY-3677","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

I read with great interest the series presented by Bananzadeh et al. (1). This series includes a group of 19 patients who underwent laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) without ileostomy, performed by the same surgeon, to treat Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP) between October 2008 and May 2011. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is currently the standard surgical alternative for the majority of ulcerative colitis (UC) and FAP patients. Despite the complexity of the operation, IPAA is safe (mortality: 0.5–1%) and carries an acceptable risk of non-life-threatening complications (10–25%), achieving good long-term functional outcomes with excellent patient satisfaction (over 95%). During the last decade, the surgical technique has evolved significantly, mainly due to the growing incorporation of laparoscopic approaches. Because it is a complex technical procedure, a temporary ileostomy proximal to the ileal pouch has typically been performed (2). Thus, the most controversial aspect of the study discussed here being the omission of ileostomy in a series of laparoscopic surgeries. A protective ileostomy may reduce anastomosis leakage, prevent pelvic sepsis and fistulization, thus preserving pouch function. Consequently, it should also prevent the need for re-laparotomy and most importantly, pouch failure. The rationale for this decision is based on the fact that a protective ileostomy may limit the severity of septic complications, as the prevalence of pouch-related septic complications varies between 6% and 37% (2). Furthermore, most patients are able to accept this temporary stoma well, although it may be a source of complications after its construction or closure. These complications may include dehydration and metabolic disorders, peristomal irritation, anastomotic fistula, intestinal obstruction, and others (3). Although a protective ileostomy is still performed in the vast majority of series, its omission is associated with a similar rate of septic complications and may also provide economic advantages for select patients. By avoiding an ileostomy, the surgeon should prevent potential associated problems such as high output and complications of the stoma and its closure. Selection criteria for this choice should exclude clinical factors (high doses of steroids, malnutrition, toxicity or anemia) and technical factors (difficult procedures with intraoperative complications). Furthermore, surgeons must be sure that the ileoanal anastomosis is tension-free, that it is supplied with adequate blood flow, that the tissue rings are intact and that there are no air leaks (3, 4). Within this context, a German group studied 706 consecutive patients (494 UC, 212 FAP) in an attempt to identify subgroups of patients who were at high risk for pouch-relat* Corresponding author: Fabio Guilherme Campos, Gastroenterology Department, Colorectal Unit, Hospital das Clinicas, Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. E-mail: fgmcampos@terra.com.br
腹腔镜恢复性直结肠切除术在腺瘤患者中的应用
我非常感兴趣地阅读了Bananzadeh等人发表的系列文章(1)。该系列文章包括一组19例患者,他们在2008年10月至2011年5月期间接受了腹腔镜恢复性直结肠切除术(RPC)而不进行回肠造口术,由同一位外科医生进行,以治疗家族性腺瘤性息肉病(FAP)。回肠袋-肛门吻合术(IPAA)是目前大多数溃疡性结肠炎(UC)和FAP患者的标准手术选择。尽管手术很复杂,但IPAA是安全的(死亡率:0.5-1%),并且具有可接受的非危及生命的并发症风险(10-25%),实现了良好的长期功能预后,患者满意度很高(95%以上)。在过去的十年中,手术技术有了显著的发展,主要是由于越来越多的腹腔镜方法的结合。由于这是一个复杂的技术过程,因此通常会在回肠袋近端进行临时回肠造口术(2)。因此,本研究中最具争议的方面是在一系列腹腔镜手术中省略了回肠造口术。保护性回肠造口术可减少吻合口漏,防止盆腔败血症和瘘管形成,从而保留袋功能。因此,它也应该防止需要再次剖腹手术,最重要的是,眼袋失败。这一决定的基本原理是基于保护性回肠造口术可以限制脓毒性并发症的严重程度,因为与袋相关的脓毒性并发症的发生率在6%至37%之间(2)。此外,大多数患者能够很好地接受这种临时造口,尽管在其建造或关闭后它可能是并发症的来源。这些并发症可能包括脱水和代谢紊乱、口周刺激、吻合口瘘、肠梗阻等(3)。尽管在绝大多数系列手术中仍行保护性回肠造口术,但其省略与脓毒性并发症发生率相似,也可能为特定患者提供经济优势。通过避免回肠造口术,外科医生应该防止潜在的相关问题,如高输出量和造口及其关闭的并发症。这种选择的选择标准应排除临床因素(高剂量类固醇、营养不良、毒性或贫血)和技术因素(术中并发症的困难手术)。此外,外科医生必须确保回肠吻合术无张力,血流充足,组织环完整,无漏气(3,4)。在此背景下,一个德国研究小组连续研究了706例患者(494例UC, 212例FAP),试图确定与袋相关的高危患者亚组*Fabio Guilherme Campos,巴西圣保罗大学医学院临床医院结肠直肠科消化内科。电子邮件:fgmcampos@terra.com.br
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信