Search

P277 Ileo-rectal anastomosis vs. ileoanal pouch in ulcerative colitis: clinical outcome in a real-life experience

G. Sena, B. Neri, E. Lolli, E. Calabrese, G. Sica, G. Monteleone, L. Biancone

University of Rome Tor Vergata, Gastroenterology, Rome, Italy

Background

In ulcerative colitis (UC) surgery is required in about 10–20% of patients (patients). Evidence regarding the long-term outcome of Ileo-rectal anastomosis (IRA) vs. the recently proposed ileal pouch (IPAA) are still lacking. In a real-life, retrospective, single-centre study, we aimed to assess the clinical outcome of all UC patients with IRA or IPAA.

Methods

In a retrospective study, clinical records of UC patients with IPAA or IRA in regular follow-up from January 2001 to September2019 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria: (1) UC diagnosis; (2) Age ≥18 years; (3) IPAA or IRA for UC;4)Detailed clinical history; (5) follow up ≥1 year after surgery. The following parameters were reported: demographic and clinical characteristics, hospitalisation, additional surgery, mortality, dysplasia/cancer of the ileum and/or rectum, number of endoscopies and outpatient visits, stool frequency and treatments. The quality of life (QoL) are being evaluated. Data were expressed as median (range), differences among groups assessed by chi-squared test or unpaired T-test.

Results

A total 84(4%) UC patients with IPAA (n = 47) or IRA (n = 37) were detected among 2136 UC patients. Among these 84 UC patients, in a preliminary assessment, clinical outcome was evaluated in 31 patients (16 IPAA,15 IRA) with a median follow up of 72 [12–180] months (mos) and a median time interval from surgery of 63 [1–348] mos. Considering the 16 patients with IPAA (8 M, 9 F) vs. the 15 with IRA (5 M,10 F), the median age at first assessment was 44 [range 30–56] vs. 48 [range 23–82] in patients with IPAA or IRA, respectively (p = 0.2123). The median follow up after surgery was 65 [range 12–132] vs. 79 [range 12–180] mos (p = 0.1955). The median time interval from surgery to first clinical assessment after surgery was 48 [range 1–312] vs. 78 [range 2–348] mos (p = 0.1955). Indication for surgery was refractory UC in 30 patients and endoscopic perforation in 1 pt. During the follow up, the following outcomes after surgery were recorded in patients with IPAA vs. IRA: hospitalised patients (n = 6 vs. n = 6 patients, p = 0.8864); additional intestinal surgery (n = 0 vs. n = 4 patients, p = 0.0269), mortality (n = 0 vs. n = 1 patients,p = 0.2938); occurrence of dysplasia/cancer of the ileum and/or rectum (n = 0 vs. n = 2 patients, p = 0.1310), number endoscopies after surgery (mean: 4 vs. n = 3.75, p = 0.316348), number visits after surgery (mean: 2.4/year vs. n = 1.7/year, p = 0.2429), mean stool frequency (n = 8.08 vs. n = 4.36; (p = 0.0005), need of biologics, n = 5 vs. n = 1 (p = 0.0834).

Conclusion

In a real-life experience, the need for intestinal surgery was significantly higher in patients with IRA vs. IPAA; the mean daily stool frequency was significantly higher in patients with IPAA vs. IRA.No statistically significant differences were found among the two groups in terms of hospitalisation, mortality, cancer/dysplasia and need for biologics.