Kelly, K. A.

AbstractThe aim was to determine whether changes in enteric bacteriology, absorption, morphology, and emptying occur after ileal pouch–anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis, and to relate any changes to the clinical result. Twenty patients were studied 26 ± 2 months (mean ± s.e.m.) after operation. Eight patients had a good result, six a poor result, and six a history of recurrent pouch ileitis. Anaerobic and aerobic overgrowth occurred in the jejunum of patients with a poor result, but not in those with a good result or with pouch ileitis. In contrast, ileal pouch bacterial overgrowth occurred in all patients regardless of the clinical result. Patients with jejunal overgrowth had increased 24 h stool volume and stool nitrogen, but other patients did not. The larger the stool volume, the greater the anaerobic overgrowth. Pouch biopsies showed chronic inflammation in all patients, while 45 per cent had colonic metaplasia. Neither the inflammation nor the metaplasia correlated with the clinical result, nor did the clinical result correlate with the efficiency of pouch emptying. In conclusion, jejunal bacterial overgrowth after ileal pouch–anal anastomosis was associated with an increased stool output, azotorrhoea, and a poor clinical result. A distinguishing bacterial, absorptive, morphological, or emptying abnormality was not found in patients with a history of recurrent pouch ileitis.

AbstractThe aim of this retrospective study was to determine the outcome of patients with a dysfunctional pelvic ileal reservoir in whom disconnection of an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), pouch revision and reanastomosis had been carried out. There were 23 patients (15 women). At the revision operation functional problems were found to be due to a long efferent spout (nine patients), sepsis and/or fistula (four), a redundant blind limb (three), a twisted pouch (three), anastomotic problems (three) or no reservoir (one). The pouch was salvaged in 16 patients and a new pouch was constructed in seven. The pouch-anal anastomosis was resutured in 22 patients and stapled in one. Postoperative complications (all minor) occurred in six patients. Two patients underwent two revisions of IPAA. At a median follow-up of 5 (range 1–10) years, 11 patients reported good to excellent function, five reported fair function and one reported recurrent pouchitis. Revision surgery was unsuccessful in six of 23 patients (three had gross incontinence, two excessive bowel movements and one Crohn's disease), and they subsequently underwent pouch excision. It is concluded that revision of an ileal reservoir and IPAA can be undertaken safely with good results in carefully selected patients.