Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1267_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
15 Мб
Скачать
☆
17 Resectional Surgery forIntestinal Strictures: What Is State oftheArt?
28. Wells RG.The role of matrix stiffness in regulating cell behavior. Hepatology. 2008;47(4):1394–
400. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18307210. [cited 2017 Jul 21].
29. Morar PS, Faiz O, Warusavitarne J, Brown S, Cohen R, Hind D, etal. Systematic review
with meta-analysis: endoscopic balloon dilatation for Crohn’s disease strictures. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;42(10):1137–48. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26358739. [cited 2017 Jul 21].
30. Grand DJ, Kampalath V, Harris A, Patel A, Resnick MB, Machan J, etal. MR enterography
correlates highly with colonoscopy and histology for both distal ileal and colonic Crohn’s dis­ease in 310 patients. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(5):e763–9. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0720048X12000940. [cited 2017 Jun 29].
31. Maccioni F, Bruni A, Viscido A, Colaiacomo MC, Cocco A, Montesani C, etal. MR imaging
in patients with Crohn disease: value of T2- versus T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced MR sequences with use of an oral superparamagnetic contrast agent. Radiology. 2006;238(2):517–
30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16371574. [cited 2017 Jun 30].
32. Morar PS, Hodgkinson JD, Thalayasingam S, Koysombat K, Purcell M, Hart AL, et al.
Determining predictors for intra-abdominal septic complications following ileocolonic resec­tion for Crohn’s disease-considerations in pre-operative and peri-operative optimisation tech­niques to improve outcome. J Crohns Colitis. 2015;9(6):483–91.
33. Feagan BG, Panaccione R, Sandborn WJ, D’Haens GR, Schreiber S, Rutgeerts PJ, et al.
Effects of adalimumab therapy on incidence of hospitalization and surgery in Crohn’s disease: results from the CHARM study. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(5):1493–9.
34. Rutgeerts P, Feagan BG, Lichtenstein GR, Mayer LF, Schreiber S, Colombel JF, et al.
Comparison of scheduled and episodic treatment strategies of iniximab in Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology. 2004;126(2):402–13.
35. Iesalnieks I, Kilger A, Glaß H, Obermeier F, Agha A, Schlitt HJ.Perforating Crohn’s ile-
itis: delay of surgery is associated with inferior postoperative outcome. Inamm Bowel Dis. 2010;16(12):2125–30.
36. Kanazawa A, Yamana T, Okamoto K, Sahara R.Risk factors for postoperative intra-abdominal
septic complications after bowel resection in patients with Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(9):957–62. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22874602.
37. Myrelid P, Olaison G, Sjödahl R, Nyström PO, Almer S, Andersson P. Thiopurine therapy is
associated with postoperative intra-abdominal septic complications in abdominal surgery for Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(8):1387–94.
38. Alves A, Panis Y, Bouhnik Y, Pocard M, Vicaut E, Valleur P.Risk factors for intra-abdominal
septic complications after a rst ileocecal resection for Crohn’s disease: a multivariate analysis in 161 consecutive patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(3):331–6.
39. Tonelli F, Fazi M, Di Martino C. Ileocecal strictureplasty for Crohn’s disease: long-term
results and comparison with ileocecal resection. World J Surg. 2010;34(12):2860–6. http://
link.springer.com/10.1007/s00268-010-0708-9. [cited 2017 Jun 6].
40. Bemelman WA, Warusavitarne J, Sampietro GM, Serclova Z, Zmora O, Luglio G, et al.
ECCO-ESCP Consensus on surgery for Crohn’s disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;12:1. https://
academic.oup.com/ecco-jcc/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx061. [cited 2017 Jun 30].
41. Shapiro M, Greenstein AJ, Byrn J, Corona J, Greenstein AJ, Salky B, etal. Surgical management
and outcomes of patients with duodenal Crohn’s disease. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(1):36–42.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18589359. [cited 2017 Jun 30].
42. Schlussel AT, Steele SR, Alavi K.Current challenges in the surgical management of Crohn’s
disease: a systematic review. Am J Surg. 2016;212(2):345–51.
43. Sampietro GM, Cristaldi M, Maconi G, Parente F, Sartani A, Ardizzone S, etal. A pro-
spective, longitudinal study of nonconventional strictureplasty in Crohn’s disease. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;199(1):8–20; discussion 20-2. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
S1072751504003096. [cited 2017 Jun 29].
44. Yamamoto T, Umegae S, Kitagawa T, Matsumoto K.Postoperative change of mucosal inamma-
tion at strictureplasty segment in Crohn’s disease: cytokine production and endoscopic and his-
249
250
tologic ndings. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(4):749–57. http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/
openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=00003453-200548040-00008. [cited 2017 Jun 30].
45. Yamamoto T, Fazio VW, Tekkis PP.Safety and efcacy of strictureplasty for Crohn’s disease:
a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(11):1968–86.
46. Ambe R, Campbell L, Cagir B.A comprehensive review of strictureplasty techniques in Crohn’s
disease: types, indications, comparisons, and safety. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(1):209–17.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-011-1651-2. [cited 2017 Jun 6].
47. Campbell L, Ambe R, Weaver J, Marcus SM, Cagir B.Comparison of conventional and non-
conventional strictureplasties in Crohn’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(6):714–26. http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKP
TLP:landingpage&an=00003453-201206000-00014. [cited 2017 Jun 6].
48. de Buck van Overstraeten A, Eshuis EJ, Vermeire S, Van Assche G, Ferrante M, D’Haens GR,
etal. Short- and medium-term outcomes following primary ileocaecal resection for Crohn’s disease in two specialist centres. Br J Surg. 2017;104:1713. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/28745410. [cited 2017 Aug 1].
49. Roy P, Kumar D.Strictureplasty. Br J Surg. 2004;91(11):1428–37. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/15499649. [cited 2017 Jul 19].
50. Dietz DW, Laureti S, Strong SA, Hull TL, Church J, Remzi FH, etal. Safety and longterm ef-
cacy of strictureplasty in 314 patients with obstructing small bowel Crohn’s disease. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;192(3):330–7; discussion 337-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11245375. [cited 2017 Jul 19].
51. Sayfan J, Wilson DAL, Allan A, Andrews H, Alexander-Williams J.Recurrence after stricture-
plasty or resection for Crohn’s disease. Br J Surg. 1989;76(4):335–8.
52. Broering DC, Eisenberger CF, Koch A, Bloechle C, Knoefel WT, Dürig M, etal. Strictureplasty
for large bowel stenosis in Crohn’s disease: quality of life after surgical therapy. Int J Color Dis. 2001;16(2):81–7.
53. Fichera A, Lovadina S, Rubin M, Cimino F, Hurst RD, Michelassi F.Patterns and opera-
tive treatment of recurrent Crohn’s disease: a prospective longitudinal study. Surgery. 2006;140(4):649–54. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S003960600600417X. [cited 2017 Jul 19].
54. Stebbing JF, Jewell DP, Kettlewell MGW, Mortensen NJMC. Long-term results of recur-
rence and reoperation after strictureplasty for obstructive Crohn’s disease. Br J Surg. 1995;82(11):1471–4.
55. Ozuner G, Fazio VW, Lavery IC, Milsom JW, Strong SA.Reoperative rates for Crohn’s dis-
ease following strictureplasty. Long-term analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39(11):1199–203.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8918424.
56. Yamamoto T, Bain IM, Allan RN, Keighley MRB.An audit of strictureplasty for small-bowel
Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42:797–803.
57. Tonelli F, Ficari F.Strictureplasty in Crohn’s disease: surgical option. Dis Colon Rectum.
2000;43(7):920–6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10910236.
58. Simillis C, Purkayastha S, Yamamoto T, Strong SA, Darzi AW, Tekkis PP, et al. Dis Colon
Rectum. 2007;50(10):1674–87. http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP
:landingpage&an=00003453-200750100-00024. [cited 2017 Jun 21].
59. Reese GE, Purkayastha S, Tilney HS, von Roon A, Yamamoto T, Tekkis PP.Strictureplasty
vs resection in small bowel Crohn’s disease: an evaluation of short-term outcomes and recur­rence. Color Dis. 2007;9(8):686–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.01114.x. [cited 2017 Apr 26].
60. Maartense S, Dunker MS, Slors JFM, Cuesta MA, Pierik EGJM, Gouma DJ, etal. Laparoscopic-
assisted versus open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Ann Surg. 2006;243(2):143–9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16432345. [cited 2017 Jun 6].
61. Eshuis EJ, Slors JFM, Stokkers PCF, Sprangers MAG, Ubbink DT, Cuesta MA, et al.
Long- term outcomes following laparoscopically assisted versus open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Br J Surg. 2010;97(4):563–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6918. [cited 2017 Jun 14].
K. A. T. G. M. Wasmann et al.
17 Resectional Surgery forIntestinal Strictures: What Is State oftheArt?
62. Dasari BV, McKay D, Gardiner K.Laparoscopic versus open surgery for small bowel Crohn’s
disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006956.
pub2. [cited 2017 May 23].
63. Eshuis EJ, Polle SW, Slors JF, Hommes DW, Sprangers MAG, Gouma DJ, etal. Long-term
surgical recurrence, morbidity, quality of life, and body image of laparoscopic-assisted vs. open ileocolic resection for Crohnʼs disease: a comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(6):858–67. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18266036. [cited 2017 Jul 3].
64. Maartense S, Bemelman WA, Gerritsen van der Hoop A, Meijer DW, Gouma DJ.Hand-assisted
laparoscopic surgery (HALS): a report of 150 procedures. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(3):397–401.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14735341. [cited 2017 Jun 30].
65. Peters WR.Laparoscopic total proctocolectomy with creation of ileostomy for ulcerative coli-
tis: report of two cases. J Laparoendosc Surg. 1992;2(3):175–8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/1535812. [cited 2017 Jun 16].
66. Remzi FH, Kirat HT, Kaouk JH, Geisler DP. Single-port laparoscopy in colorectal surgery.
Color Dis. 2008;10(8):823–6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18684153. [cited 2017 Jun 16].
67. Bucher P, Pugin F, Morel P. Single port access laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Int J
Colorectal Dis. 2008;23(10):1013–6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18607608. [cited 2017 Jun 16].
68. Carvello M, de Groof EJ, de Buck van Overstraeten A, Sacchi M, Wolthuis AM, Buskens CJ,
etal. Single port laparoscopic ileocaecal resection for Crohn’s disease: a multicentre com­parison with multi-port laparoscopy. Color Dis. 2018;20:53. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/28622435. [cited 2017 Jun 30].
69. Randall J, Lord B, Fulham J, Soin B. Parastomal hernias as the predominant stoma com-
plication after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22(5):420–3. http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpag
e&an=00129689-201210000-00011. [cited 2017 Jun 16].
70. de Groof EJ, Buskens CJ, Bemelman WA.Single-port surgery in inammatory bowel disease:
a review of current evidence. World J Surg. 2016;40(9):2276–82. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/27094562. [cited 2017 Jun 16].
71. Bullard Dunn KM, Rothenberger DA.Colon, rectum, and anus. In: Schwartz’s principles of
surgery, chap. 29, 9th ed. NewYork: McGraw-Hill; 2009.
72. Tersigni R, Alessandroni L, Barreca M, Piovanello P, Prantera C. Does stapled func-
tional end-to-end anastomosis affect recurrence of Crohn’s disease after ileocolonic resection? Hepatogastroenterology. 2003;50(53):1422–5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/14571753. [cited 2017 Jul 20].
73. Choy PYG, Bissett IP, Docherty JG, Parry BR, Merrie A, Fitzgerald A.Stapled versus hand-
sewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;7(9):CD004320.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21901690. [cited 2017 Jun 30].
74. Guo Z, Li Y, Zhu W, Gong J, Li N, Li J.Comparing outcomes between side-to-side anasto-
mosis and other anastomotic congurations after intestinal resection for patients with Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2013;37(4):893–901. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/23354925. [cited 2017 Jul 20].
75. He X, Chen Z, Huang J, Lian L, Rouniyar S, Wu X, etal. Stapled side-to-side anastomosis
might be better than handsewn end-to-end anastomosis in ileocolic resection for Crohn’s dis­ease: a meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59(7):1544–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-
3039-0. [cited 2017 Jul 20].
76. McLeod RS, Wolff BG, Ross S, Parkes R, McKenzie M, Investigators of the CAST Trial.
Recurrence of Crohn’s disease after ileocolic resection is not affected by anastomotic type. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(5):919–27. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19502857. [cited 2017 Jun 6].
77. Cameron JL, Hamilton SR, Coleman J, Sitzmann JV, Bayless TM.Patterns of ileal recurrence
in Crohn’s disease. A prospective randomized study. Ann Surg. 1992;215(5):546–51; discus­sion 551-2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1616391. [cited 2017 Jun 21].
251
252
78. Gionchetti P, Dignass A, Danese S, Magro Dias FJ, Rogler G, Lakatos PL, etal. 3rd European
evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease 2016: part 2: surgical management and special situations. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11(2):135–49.
79. Fazio VW, Marchetti F, Church M, Goldblum JR, Lavery C, Hull TL, etal. Effect of resection
margins on the recurrence of Crohn’s disease in the small bowel. A randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 1996;224(4):563–71; discussion 571-3.
80. Botti F, Carrara A, Antonelli B, Quadri F, Maino M, Cesana B, etal. [The minimal bowel
resection in Crohn’s disease: analysis of prognostic factors on the surgical recurrence]. Ann Ital Chir. 2003;74(6):627–33.
81. Heuman R, Boeryd B, Bolin T, Sjödahl R.The inuence of disease at the margin of resection
on the outcome of Crohn’s disease. Br J Surg. 1983;70(9):519–21. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/6616154. [cited 2017 Apr 26].
82. Coffey JC, O’Leary DP. The mesentery: structure, function, and role in disease. Lancet
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;1(3):238–47. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
S2468125316300267. [cited 2017 Jun 21].
83. Kredel L, Batra A, Siegmund B.Role of fat and adipokines in intestinal inammation. Curr
Opin Gastroenterol. 2014;30(6):559–65. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25188546. [cited 2017 Jun 21].
84. Li Y, Zhu W, Zuo L, Shen B.The role of the mesentery in Crohn’s disease: the contributions
of nerves, vessels, lymphatics, and fat to the pathogenesis and disease course. Inamm Bowel Dis. 2016;22(6):1483–95. http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landi
ngpage&an=00054725-201606000-00025. [cited 2017 Jun 21].
85. Bartels SAL, Gardenbroek TJ, Aarts M, Ponsioen CY, Tanis PJ, Buskens CJ, etal. Short-term
morbidity and quality of life from a randomized clinical trial of close rectal dissection and total mesorectal excision in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg. 2015;102(3):281–7. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9701. [cited 2017 Jun 30].
86. Molendijk I, Nuij VJAA, van der Meulen-de Jong AE, van der Woude CJ.Disappointing dura-
ble remission rates in complex Crohn’s disease stula. Inamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20(11):2022–
8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25159455. [cited 2017 Jun 30].
87. Peters CP, Eshuis EJ, Toxopeüs FM, Hellemons ME, Jansen JM, D’Haens GRAM, et al.
Adalimumab for Crohn’s disease: long-term sustained benet in a population-based cohort of 438 patients. J Crohns Colitis. 2014;8(8):866–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crohns.2014.01.012. [cited 2017 Jun 14].
K. A. T. G. M. Wasmann et al.
Chapter 18
Management ofIleal Pouch Strictures andAnal Stricturing Disease: AClinical Challenge
JeanH.Ashburn andTracyL.Hull
Abstract Restorative proctocolectomy with an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis
(IPAA) has been an ideal surgical option for patients with chronic ulcerative colitis (UC), familial adenomatous polyposis, and selected patients with colorectal cancer and Crohn’s disease for nearly four decades. In most cases, patients enjoy excellent quality of life with a durable surgical and functional result, avoiding the need for a permanent conventional ileostomy.
Despite great success, patients with IPAA may suffer from several pouch-related complications that are a challenge for the patient and clinician. IPAA-associated brotic stricturing disease is one such challenging complication that requires thoughtful judgment for successful management. Treatment of brotic strictures of the IPAA requires a multidisciplinary approach involving medical, endoscopic and surgical input for accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and improvement of qual­ity of life.
The focus of this review is to provide a structured approach to the challenges that the clinician encounters when faced with a patient with IPAA-associated brosis and stricturing disease and to discuss the surgical options that alleviate the morbid­ity caused by ileal pouch brosis when medical treatments fail.
Keywords Ileal pouch · Surgery for IPAA stricture · Ileostomy · Multidisciplinary ileal pouch team · Ileal pouch failure · Pouch disorders · Pouch stricture Ileal pouch brosis
J. H. Ashburn · T. L. Hull (*) Department of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Diseases and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA e-mail: jashburn@wakehealth.edu; HULLT@ccf.org
F. Rieder (ed.), Fibrostenotic Inammatory Bowel Disease,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90578-5_18
253© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
254
J. H. Ashburn and T. L. Hull

18.1 Introduction

Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) has been an ideal surgical option for patients with ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis, and very selected patient with colorectal cancer and Crohn’s disease, for over three decades [1, 2]. In most cases, patients report excellent quality of life with a durable surgical and functional result, and are able to avoid a lifelong ileostomy [3]. IPAA has undergone several modications in its approach since it was popular­ized in the early 1980s. Over this time, innovative approaches have been applied to IPAA surgery, functional outcomes have improved, and pouch survival has remained high when performed in high-volume centers with surgeons experienced in these types of surgery [4, 5].
When surgery goes according to plan and recovery proceeds without event, patients enjoy excellent quality of life with manageable bowel function and are without major lifestyle limitations [3]. However, circumstances may occur in which patients suffer from immediate or eventual IPAA dysfunction with compromised bowel function and quality of life [1, 6, 7]. One cause of a poorly functioning IPAA that poses great challenges to the patient and clinician alike is development of brotic stricturing disease in or adjacent to the IPAA.A proposed etiology, diagnos­tic approach, and management strategies often employed to address this challenge will be discussed at length in the following text.
18.2 Construction oftheIleoanal Pouch
IPAA surgery consists of removal of the colorectum and creation of an ileal reser­voir, which is constructed from the distal ileum (Fig.18.1). The reservoir is joined, using varying methods, to the anorectal ring to restore intestinal continuity. In patients with severe fulminant colitis or who have poor health, the procedure is performed over an extended time period in multiple stages. This usually involves performing a colectomy with end ileostomy, followed by proctectomy with diverted IPAA when health is restored, usually after a waiting period >6months. In very carefully selected patients who are otherwise t and have no risk factors for poor healing, a single-stage IPAA may be a safe option, but this should be a rare occurrence [8].
The rst reports of IPAA decades ago described construction of an S-shaped ileal pouch that was secured to the anal canal using a hand-sewn anastomosis [9]. A vari­ety of congurations have been considered over time, including the S, J, W and H congurations (Fig.18.2) [10]. The J pouch is the most popular conguration pres­ently, as it is the easiest and most expeditious to construct and its construction may be assisted by stapling devices [11]. The S and W pouches necessitate a lengthier segment of distal ileum and typically require a hand-sewn approach to construct the
18 Management ofIleal Pouch Strictures andAnal Stricturing Disease: AClinical Challenge
Fig. 18.1 Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA)
255
Fig. 18.2 Ileal J pouch (left) and S pouch (right)
256
Fig. 18.3 Mesenteric reach with J (left) and S (right) pouch congurations
J. H. Ashburn and T. L. Hull
actual pouch, and thus are more time-consuming and technically challenging to create. The J pouch conguration is most commonly used unless adequate mesen­teric length is not available, as creating a tension-free pouch-anal anastomosis is the most critical step to successful pouch surgery. In the case where a J pouch will not reach without tension, an S pouch may be helpful as its conguration allows for a longer reach (2–4cm longer than J pouch) into the pelvis (Fig.18.3). A pouch-anal anastomosis created under tension is destined to result in anastomotic leak and pel­vic sepsis in the short term, and leads to pelvic brosis or chronic pouch ischemia with poor pouch function over time [1].
The ideal method of constructing the pouch-anal anastomosis has long been debated, with the stapled IPAA as the preferred method over hand-sewn IPAA in most instances. The introduction of stapling devices several decades ago made it possible for the stapled IPAA to be less-time consuming and associated with bet­ter outcomes than hand-sewn IPAA [12]. In addition, patients with UC undergo­ing a stapled IPAA rarely develop cancer in the preserved anal transition zone (ATZ) [13]. The stapled IPAA is carried out with either a single or double-sta­pled approach and the IPAA is joined to the ATZ, thus preserving anal sensory epithelium (Fig. 18.4). Conversely, a hand-sewn IPAA is performed by rst removing all anorectal mucosa from the dentate line cranially to the anorectal transection (Fig.18.5). The IPAA is then delivered into the pelvis and sutured to the internal sphincter at the neo dentate line in a radial fashion. If properly per­formed, the anal sensory epithelium and all rectal mucosa is removed in this method. However, this method is more likely to exhibit stricture formation at the anastomosis.
18 Management ofIleal Pouch Strictures andAnal Stricturing Disease: AClinical Challenge
257
Fig. 18.4 Stapled IPAA
Fig. 18.5 Mucosectomy with hand-sewn IPAA
258
J. H. Ashburn and T. L. Hull
18.3 Etiology ofFibrotic IPAA Dysfunction
Although many factors may underlie stricture formation, patients who undergo pelvic pouch surgery most commonly develop brosis due to the presence of chronic pelvic sepsis. This persistent inammation in the pelvis and/or anoperineum, if not controlled early, leads to brotic changes in the pre-pouch small bowel (afferent limb), pouch body, pouch outlet (efferent limb) or anoperineum [14, 15]. Chronic pelvic sepsis that develops in the months following IPAA surgery is likely the result of technical compli­cations leading to pouch-anal anastomotic leak. Conversely, pelvic sepsis which devel­ops many months to years after IPAA surgery is more likely to be untoward sequelae of Crohn’s disease. Regardless of etiology, all pouch- related sepsis necessitates expedi­tious diagnosis and drainage in order to reduce the risk of stricture development.
Other etiologies have been proposed as causes of IPAA brosis and stricture, including weight gain and increased abdominal girth after pouch surgery resulting in excessive mesenteric tension and chronic pouch ischemia [16–18]. In addition, pelvic radiation in the setting of IPAA surgery is associated with pouch brosis and subsequent high risk for failure [19].
Regardless of etiology, clinical symptoms from IPAA-related brosis depends upon location and severity of inammation. Fibrotic strictures upstream of the IPAA in the pre-pouch ileum (afferent limb) cause patients to suffer from obstructive symp­toms like abdominal pain, cramping, and limited dietary intake of brous foods. Bowel motions may be primarily watery or loose, as more bulky components of stool do not pass easily and are detained upstream of the stricture. Fibrosis around or involv­ing the pouch body restricts the ability of the pouch to accommodate and distend, thus reducing its volume and leads to frequent bowel motions. Strictures of the efferent limb (rectal cuff) or anal canal may make pouch emptying difcult, leading to exces­sive straining, feelings of incomplete emptying, chronic pouch dilation and stretch, and overow incontinence [20]. Often, a careful and meticulous history can elicit these telltale symptoms from the patient, allowing the clinician to predict the location of stricture even before radiographic or endoscopic evaluation is complete.
An additional site of concern after IPAA surgery is the ileostomy closure site, which may develop stricturing disease due to a subclinical anastomotic leak or isch­emia at the time of ileostomy closure, or excessive scar formation after closure (Fig.18.6). This site must always be interrogated and considered as a part of the
Fig. 18.6 Fibrotic stricture at stapled ileostomy closure site (reuse by permission only JA CCF)