Salvage abdominal surgery in patients with a retained rectal stump after restorative proctocolectomy and stapled anastomosis

Citation
H. Tulchinsky et al., Salvage abdominal surgery in patients with a retained rectal stump after restorative proctocolectomy and stapled anastomosis, BR J SURG, 88(12), 2001, pp. 1602-1606
Citations number
32
Categorie Soggetti
Surgery,"Medical Research Diagnosis & Treatment
Journal title
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
ISSN journal
00071323 → ACNP
Volume
88
Issue
12
Year of publication
2001
Pages
1602 - 1606
Database
ISI
SICI code
0007-1323(200112)88:12<1602:SASIPW>2.0.ZU;2-0
Abstract
Background: The introduction of surgical stapling instruments has widened t he use of restorative proctocolectomy. Too high a distal transection of the rectum can, however, produce a retained rectal stump, which may cause symp toms. A study of the operative and functional data in a consecutive series of patients undergoing salvage surgery for retained rectal stump was undert aken. Methods: Twenty-five patients referred between January 1990 and September 2 000 for pouch dysfunction were identified as having a retained rectal stump . Twenty-two underwent abdominoanal revision. The hospital notes were revie wed and function was assessed during outpatient visits, by postal questionn aire and by telephone interview. Results: Median operating time was 225 (range 170-340) min and median hospi tal stay was 15 (range 8-48) days. There was no operative death. Five pouch es were excised. Seventeen patients were available for functional assessmen t. Median follow-up was 22.5 (range 4-114) months. Median 24-h frequency be fore and after operation was 12 (range 4-20) and 6 (range 3-12) respectivel y, and median night-time frequency was 4 (range 0-8) and 0.5 (range 0-4) re spectively. Fifteen patients reported marked subjective improvement in pouc h function and quality of life. Conclusion: Major revisional surgery for symptomatic retained rectal stump after restorative proctocolectomy, with stapled anastomosis was successful in 15 of 22 patients. These results are worse than the outcome following fi rst-time restorative proctocolectomy with anastomosis constructed at the an al level. Pouch-rectal anastomosis should be avoided.