Stocchi, Luca

AbstractIleocolic resection (ICR) is the most common surgical procedure in Crohn disease (CD). There are many surgical techniques for performing ICRs and subsequent anastomoses. Recurrence of CD after ICR is common, often clinically silent, and thus requires monitoring including periodic use of endoscopy to detect early active disease. There is emerging evidence that surgical approaches may influence CD recurrence. This review explores the various surgical considerations, the data behind each decision, and how these techniques influence subsequent endoscopic surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for pouch survival may or may not have a linear relationship with pouch loss over time. Conditional survival is a method to describe these nonlinear time-to-event relationships by reporting the expected survival at various time points. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to calculate conditional pouch survival based on occurrence of risk factors for pouch loss. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study from an institutional database. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. PATIENTS: Patients with ulcerative or indeterminate colitis who underwent index IPAA construction between 1986 and 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were stratified based on postoperative anastomotic leak, abscess, or fistula occurrence. The Kaplan–Meier method with conditional survival was used to estimate overall and cause-specific survival at 10 years. RESULTS: A total of 3468 patients underwent IPAA during the study period. The overall 10-year pouch survival rate was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93–0.95), and after 1 year the conditional pouch survival increased to 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94–0.96), after 3 years to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96–0.98), and after 5 years to 0.98 (95% CI, 0.98–0.99). A total of 122 patients (3.5%) developed anastomotic leak, and the 10-year IPAA survival in patients with leak was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.77–0.93). In this group, after 1 year of pouch survival, the conditional pouch survival increased to 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82–0.96) and after 3 years to 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94–1.00). A similar pattern was seen for IPAA with postoperative abscess. The conditional survival curve was stable over time for patients with a fistula. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective, single-institution study. CONCLUSIONS: Overall conditional pouch survival improved over time for patients with postoperative anastomotic leak and abscess. These novel findings can be useful to counsel patients regarding expectations for long-term pouch survival even if they develop leaks and abscesses. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B217. SUPERVIVENCIA CONDICIONAL DESPUÉS DE ANASTOMOSIS CON BOLSA ÍLEO ANAL, PARA COLITIS ULCERATIVA E INDETERMINADA: ¿LA SOBREVIDA DE LA BOLSA A LARGO PLAZO, MEJORA O EMPEORA CON EL TIEMPO? ANTECEDENTES: Los factores de riesgo para la sobrevida de la bolsa, pueden o no tener una relación lineal con la pérdida de la bolsa y con el tiempo. La supervivencia condicional es un método para describir estas relaciones no lineales de tiempo, hasta el evento informando la supervivencia esperada en varios puntos de tiempo. OBJETIVO: El objetivo de este estudio fue calcular la supervivencia condicional de la bolsa, en función de aparición de factores de riesgo para la pérdida de bolsa. DISEÑO: Estudio retrospectivo de una base de datos institucional. AJUSTES: Cleveland Clinic Foundation. PACIENTES: Pacientes con colitis ulcerativa o indeterminada, sometidos a una anastomosis de bolsa íleo anal, de 1986 a 2016. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Los pacientes fueron estratificados en función de la fuga anastomótica postoperatoria, absceso o aparición de fístula. El método de Kaplan Meier con supervivencia condicional, se utilizó para estimar la supervivencia general y la causa específica a los 10 años. RESULTADOS: Un total de 3.468 pacientes fueron sometidos a anastomosis ileal con bolsa anal durante el período de estudio. La tasa de supervivencia global de la bolsa a 10 años, fue de 0,94 (0,93 a 0,95), y después de 1 año, la supervivencia condicional de la bolsa aumentó a 0,95 (0,94 a 0,96), después de 3 años a 0,97 (0,96 a 0,98) y después de 5 años a 0.98 (0.98 - 0.99). Un total de 122 (3,5%) pacientes desarrollaron fuga anastomótica, y la supervivencia de la anastomosis de bolsa íleo anal a 10 años en pacientes con fuga fue de 0,85 (IC del 95%: 0,77 a 0,93). En este grupo, después de 1 año de supervivencia de la bolsa, la supervivencia condicional de la bolsa aumentó a 0,89 (IC del 95%: 0,82 a 0,96), y después de 3 años a 0,98 (IC del 95%: 0,94 a 1). Se observó un patrón similar para la anastomosis de bolsa íleo anal con absceso postoperatorio. La curva de supervivencia condicional fue estable en el tiempo para los pacientes con una fístula. LIMITACIONES: Estudio retrospectivo, de una sola institución. CONCLUSIONES: La supervivencia condicional global de la bolsa, mejoró con el tiempo para pacientes con fuga anastomótica postoperatoria y absceso. Estos nuevos hallazgos pueden ser útiles para aconsejar a los pacientes con respecto a las expectativas de supervivencia de la bolsa a largo plazo, incluso si desarrollan fugas y abscesos. Consulte Video Resumen http://links.lww.com/DCR/B217. (Traducción—Dr Fidel Ruiz Healy)

BACKGROUND: In selected patients with ulcerative colitis and pelvic pouch failure, redo pouch is an option. However, it is unknown whether selected patients with Crohn’s disease should be offered a chance to avoid permanent diversion after failure of IPAA. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the outcomes of redo pouch for ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained pouch database (1983–2017). SETTINGS: The setting was the Cleveland Clinic. PATIENTS: This study included patients who underwent redo pouch with a primary surgical specimen diagnosis of ulcerative or Crohn’s colitis at the time of initial pouch. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pouch failure was defined as either pouch excision or indefinite pouch diversion. Patient characteristics, perioperative and functional outcomes, pouch survival, and quality of life were compared according to the diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 422 patients, 392 had ulcerative colitis and 30 had Crohn’s disease. Age and sex were comparable. The most common indications for redo pouch included anastomotic separation and fistulas (220 (56.1%) in ulcerative colitis and 21 (70%) in Crohn’s disease). The majority of redo pouches required mucosectomy with handsewn anastomosis (310 (79%) in ulcerative colitis and 30 (100%) in Crohn’s disease; p = 0.23). A new pouch was constructed in 160 patients (41%) with ulcerative colitis and repair of old pouch in 231 patients (59%) compared with 25 (83%) in Crohn’s disease, who had creation of new pouch; only in 5 (17%) was the old pouch re-anastomosed. Stool frequency, seepage, and fecal urgency were comparable between groups. Cumulative 5-year pouch survival was longer in ulcerative colitis versus Crohn’s disease (88% vs 55%; p = 0.008). Major causes of redo failure in Crohn’s disease were pouch fistulas and/or strictures occurring after ileostomy closure. These were more common in Crohn’s disease than in ulcerative colitis (p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Redo pouch can be offered to selected patients with colonic Crohn’s disease diagnosed at the time of their primary pouch. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B206. Rehacer la Anastomosis Ileoanal con Reservorio Después de un Reservorio Ileal Fallido en Pacientes con Enfermedad de Crohn: ¿Vale la Pena Intentarlo? ANTECEDENTES: En pacientes seleccionados con colitis ulcerativa y falla del reservorio pélvico, rehacer el reservorio es una opción. Sin embargo, se desconoce si en los pacientes seleccionados con enfermedad de Crohn se debería ofrecer la oportunidad de evitar la derivación permanente después de la falla de la anastomosis ileoanal con reservorio ileal. OBJETIVO: El objetivo fue comparar los resultados de reservorios re-hechos en colitis ulcerosa y la enfermedad de Crohn. ESCENARIO: El escenario fue la Cleveland Clinic. DISEÑO: Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos de reservorios ileales mantenida prospectivamente (1983-2017). PACIENTES: Este estudio incluyó a pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía para rehacer el reservorio ileal con un diagnóstico en el espécimen quirúrgico primario de colitis ulcerosa o de Crohn en el momento del reservorio inicial. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: La falla del reservorio se definió como la escisión del reservorio o la derivación indefinida del reservorio. Las características del paciente, los resultados perioperatorios y funcionales, la supervivencia del reservorio y la calidad de vida se compararon de acuerdo con el diagnóstico. RESULTADOS: De 422 pacientes, 392 tenían colitis ulcerativa y 30 tenían enfermedad de Crohn. La edad y el género fueron comparables. Las indicaciones más comunes para rehacer el reservorio incluyeron dehiscencia anastomótica y fístulas [220 (56,1%) en colitis ulcerosa y 21 (70%) en la enfermedad de Crohn]. La mayoría de los reservorios rehechos requirieron mucosectomía con anastomosis manual [310 (79%) en colitis ulcerosa y 30 (100%) en la enfermedad de Crohn, p = 0.23]. Se construyó un nuevo reservorio en 160 (41%) pacientes con colitis ulcerativa y se reparó el reservorio antiguo en 231 (59%) pacientes, en comparación con 25 (83%) en la enfermedad de Crohn, que requirieron creación de un nuevo reservorio, y solo 5 (17%) donde el reservorio antiguo se volvió a anastomosar. La frecuencia de las evacuaciones, el manchado fecal y la urgencia fecal fueron comparables entre grupos. La supervivencia acumulada del reservorio a 5 años fue mayor en la colitis ulcerativa frente a la enfermedad de Crohn (88% frente a 55%, p = 0.008). Las principales causas de falla del reservorio rehecho en la enfermedad de Crohn fueron las fístulas del reservorio y / o las estenosis que ocurrieron después del cierre de ileostomía. Estas fueron más comunes en la enfermedad de Crohn que en la colitis ulcerativa (p <0.001). LIMITACIONES: Este fue un diseño retrospectivo. CONCLUSIÓN: Rehacer el reservorio ileal se puede ofrecer a pacientes seleccionados con enfermedad de Crohn colónica diagnosticada en el momento de su reservorio primario. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B206. (Traducción—Dr Jorge Silva Velazco)

BACKGROUND: Restorative total proctocolectomy with IPAA may not be feasible in some patients because of technical intraoperative limitations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess preoperative predictors for intraoperative IPAA and review management. DESIGN: This is a retrospective review. SETTING: This study was conducted at Cleveland Clinic between January 2010 and May 2018. PATIENTS: Patients ≥18 years of age who underwent ileoanal pouch surgery were included. Patients with successful pouch creation as planned were grouped as “successful IPAA creation.” Operative reports of patients who underwent alternative procedures were reviewed to identify cases when the pouch was preoperatively planned but intraoperatively abandoned (IPAA-abandoned group). Multivariate logistic regression models were developed to determine predictors of intraoperative pouch abandonment. We also reviewed the management of patients in whom the initial pouch creation failed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were preoperative predictors for intraoperative ileoanal pouch abandonment. RESULTS: A total of 1438 patients were offered an ileoanal pouch; 21 (1.5%) experienced pouch abandonment due to inadequate reach (n = 17) and other technical reasons (n = 4). These patients underwent alternative procedures such as end or loop ileostomy with/without proctectomy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated male sex (OR, 6.021; 95% CI, 1.540–23.534), BMI (OR, 1.217; 95% CI, 1.114–1.329), and a 2-stage procedure (OR, 14.510; 95% CI, 4.123–51.064) as independent factors associated with intraoperative abandonment of pouch creation. Alternative procedures were total proctocolectomy with end ileostomy (n = 14) and total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy without proctectomy (n = 7). Ultimately, pouch creation was achieved in 6 of 21 patients after a median interval of 8.8 (range, 4.1–34.8) months. All patients had intentional weight loss before a reattempt and total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy without proctectomy as their initial procedure. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Ileoanal pouch abandonment is rare and can be mitigated by initial total abdominal colectomy and weight loss. Male, obese patients are at a higher risk of failure. Intraoperative assessment of ileoanal pouch feasibility should occur before rectal dissection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B156. PREDICCIÓN MULTIVARIANTE DEL ABANDONO INTRAOPERATORIO DE LA ANASTOMOSIS ANAL CON BOLSA ILEAL ANTECEDENTES: La proctocolectomía total restaurativa con anastomosis de bolsa ileoanal puede no ser posible en algunos pacientes debido a limitaciones técnicas intraoperatorias. OBJETIVO: Evaluar los predictores preoperatorios para el abandono intraoperatorio de la bolsa ileoanal y revisar el manejo. DISEÑO: Revisión retrospectiva. MARCO: Cleveland Clinic entre Enero de 2010 y mayo de 2018. PACIENTES: Pacientes > 18 años que se sometieron a cirugía de bolsa ileoanal. Los pacientes con una creación exitosa de la bolsa según lo planeado se agruparon como “creación exitosa de anastomosis de bolsa ileoanal”. Se revisaron los informes operativos de los pacientes que se sometieron a procedimientos alternativos para identificar los casos en que la bolsa se planificó preoperatoriamente pero se abandonó intraoperatoriamente (grupo de “anastomosis anal de bolsa ileoanal abandonada”). Se desarrollaron modelos de regresión logística multivariante para determinar los predictores del abandono intraoperatorio de la bolsa. También revisamos el manejo de pacientes que fallaron en la creación inicial de la bolsa. MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Predictores preoperatorios para el abandono intraoperatorio de la bolsa ileoanal. RESULTADOS: A un total de 1438 pacientes se les ofreció una bolsa ileoanal; 21 (1.5%) experimentaron abandono de la bolsa debido a un alcance inadecuado (n = 17) y otras razones técnicas (n = 4). Estos pacientes se sometieron a procedimientos alternativos como ileostomía final o de asa con / sin proctectomía. El análisis de regresión logística multivariante indicó género masculino (OR, 6.021; IC 95%, 1.540–23.534), índice de masa corporal (OR, 1.217; IC 95%, 1.114–1.329) y procedimiento en 2 etapas (OR, 14.510; IC 95%, 4.123–51.064) como factores independientes asociados con el abandono intraoperatorio de la creación de la bolsa. Los procedimientos alternativos fueron la proctocolectomía total con ileostomía final (n = 14) y la colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía final sin proctectomía (n = 7). Finalmente, la creación de la bolsa se logró en 6/21 pacientes después de un intervalo medio de 8.8 (rango, 4.1–34.8) meses. Todos los pacientes tuvieron pérdida de peso intencional antes de la reintenta y colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía final sin proctectomía como procedimiento inicial. LIMITACIONES: Naturaleza retrospectiva. CONCLUSIONES: El abandono de la bolsa ileoanal es raro y puede mitigarse mediante la colectomía abdominal total inicial y la pérdida de peso. Los pacientes masculinos y obesos tienen un mayor riesgo de fracaso. La evaluación intraoperatoria de la viabilidad de la bolsa ileoanal debe ocurrir antes de la disección rectal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B156. (Traducción—Dr. Yesenia Rojas-Kahlil)

PURPOSE: Substantial and successful effort has been focused on decreasing the risk of local failure after rectal cancer surgery through the use of adjuvant therapies. Our study examined data from studies conducted by United States cooperative groups to investigate the impact of surgical and pathologic variables in rectal cancer outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Surgical and pathologic reports from 673 patients with stage II/III rectal cancer enrolled onto three adjuvant clinical trials were reviewed for tumor and surgical variables. Additional information on individual institutions and operating surgeon was collected. Variables were tested for association with 5-year local recurrence and survival after adjustment for adjuvant treatments and other important prognostic factors. RESULTS: Five-year local recurrence and survival rates were 16% and 59%, respectively. Surgeons treating more than 10 study cases had lower local recurrence rates than those treating ≤ 10 (11% v 17%, P = .02). Free radial margins also correlated with local recurrence (P = .01). Type of surgery, distal margins, and tumor radial spread were not significant. Tumor adherence to adjacent structures predicted local recurrence (35% v 14%, P < .001) and survival (30% v 63%, P < .001), regardless of en bloc resection. Although T and N classification predicted survival (P < .001), only N classification correlated with local recurrence. The number and percentage of positive nodes correlated with survival, but only the percentage independently predicted local recurrence. Several pathologic and surgical variables were reported suboptimally. CONCLUSION: Moderate variability in outcomes among surgeons was detected in this high-risk population. Efforts to improve surgical results will require changes in reporting practices to allow for more accurate assessment of the quality of surgery.

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.