Ulcerative Colitis: Schluender SJ

Schluender SJ, Ippoliti A, Dubinsky M, Vasiliauskas EA, Papadakis KA, Mei L, Targan SR, Fleshner PR. · Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8737 Beverly Boulevard, Suite 101, Los Angeles, California 90048, USA. · Dis Colon Rectum. · Pubmed #17704969 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: Since infliximab has been approved for treatment of patients with refractory ulcerative colitis, surgeons will be increasingly faced with operating on patients who have failed therapy with this potent immunosuppressant. This study was designed to compare short-term complications in patients with ulcerative colitis who were treated with and without infliximab before colectomy. METHODS: The charts of patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis or subtotal colectomy for refractory ulcerative colitis during the five-year period ending October 2005 were reviewed. Postoperative medical and surgical complications were assessed. RESULTS: Seventeen patients had failed infliximab treatment and 134 patients were never treated with infliximab. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis was performed in 112 patients (74 percent) and subtotal colectomy in 39 patients (36 percent). There were no deaths. Postoperative complications were observed in 43 patients (28 percent), with no significant difference observed between infliximab-treated (37 percent) and infliximab-untreated patients (27 percent). Of 61 patients (40 percent) treated with preoperative cyclosporine A, 5 patients also had been treated with infliximab. The infliximab and cyclosporine A-treated patient group had an 80 percent complication rate, significantly higher than the 29 percent complication rate noted in the cyclosporine A only-treated group (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Although preoperative treatment with infliximab alone does not significantly increase the incidence of postoperative complications, using both inflixiamb and cyclosporine A before colectomy in refractory ulcerative colitis is associated with high surgical morbidity.

Schluender SJ, Mei L, Yang H, Fleshner PR. · Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. · Am Surg. · Pubmed #17058734 No free full text.

Abstract: Although ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the procedure of choice for polyposis and ulcerative colitis with medically refractory disease or dysplasia, controversy exists concerning whether mucosal preservation with double-stapled (DS) IPAA is superior to mucosectomy and handsewn (HS) IPAA anastomosis for postoperative function. Prospective studies have shown no statistically significant differences. The use of meta-analysis can strengthen statistical power by combining the data from related studies. A meta-analysis was performed to determine whether there was a significant difference in functional and manometric outcome between HS-IPAA and DS-IPAA. Prospective, randomized studies were identified using a literature search. Functional outcome variables included number of normal continence, minor incontinence, nocturnal evacuation, the ability to discriminate flatus from stool, and antidiarrheal medication. Manometric outcomes included postoperative resting and squeeze anal pressures. Four prospective, randomized trials were identified. Of the 184 total patients, the HS-IPAA group included 86 patients (48 men and 38 women) and the DS-IPAA group included 98 patients (49 men and 49 women). There were no significant differences in functional outcome between HS-IPAA and DS-IPAA. In addition, there was no significant difference in sphincter resting and squeeze pressures between the two patient groups. This meta-analysis demonstrates that DS-IPAA offers no advantage in functional or manometric outcome when compared with HS-IPAA.