Skip to main content
Log in

Physiologic evaluation and surgical management of failed ileoanal pouch

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Following proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, a small percentage of patients will have poor functional results attributable to pouchitis or anastomotic or septic complications. Additionally, functional failures can occur secondary to limited pouch capacity and compliance. We present five such patients managed with operative conversion to W-ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and examined physiologic parameters important for improving functional results. METHODS: Five female patients (mean age, 30 (range, 24–39) years) with poorly functioning J-ileal pouch-anal anastomoses were referred for evaluation with symptoms of high stool frequency and incontinence problems. Three had severe nocturnal incontinence, and the remaining two patients experienced minor nocturnal incontinence. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation included barium pouch studies, flexible sigmoidoscopy, anal manometry, evacuation volume, and pouch compliance. Pouch-to-anal pressure gradients were calculated. To improve reservoir capacity and compliance, all five patients underwent conversion to W-ileal pouch-anal anastomoses. RESULTS: Twenty-four hour and nocturnal stool frequencies decreased from 13.8±1.7 and 3±1.3 to 5.8±0.3 and 0.3±0.2 postconversion (P<0.05). Mean pouch evacuation volume increased from 83±27 to 290±29 ml postoperatively (P<0.05). Pouch compliance increased from 2.7±0.5 mmHg/ml to 7.7±0.6 mmHg/ml postconversion (P<0.05). Improvement in postconversion stool frequency correlated with an increase in pouch evacuation volume (r=−0.87). All patients reported improved day and nocturnal continence, despite no significant change between preoperative and postoperative anal manometric pressures. Improved continence correlated with a significant widening of the pouch-to-anal pressure gradients, which increased from 5 to 25 mmHg at 150 ml following pouch conversion. CONCLUSIONS: Poorly functioning ileal reservoirs secondary to limited capacity and compliance can be successfully managed with conversion to W-ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. The increased pouch capacity is associated with improvement in compliance and widening of the pouch-to-anal pressure gradients, providing excellent functional results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kohler LW, Pemberton JH, Zinsmeister AR, Kelly KA. Quality of life after proctocolectomy: a comparison of Brooke ileostomy, Kock pouch, and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Gastroenterology 1991;101:679–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Harms BA, Andersen AB, Starling JR. The W ileal reservoir: long-term assessment after proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis and familial polyposis. Surgery 1992;112:638–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sagar PM, Dozois RR, Wolff BG, Kelly KA. Disconnection, pouch revision and reconstruction of the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 1996;83:1401–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Galandiuk S, Scott NA, Dozois RR,et al. Ileal pouch anal-anastomosis: reoperation for pouch-related complications. Ann Surg 1990;212:446–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Poggioli G, Marchetti F, Selleri S, Laureti S, Stocchi L, Gozzetti G. Redo pouches: salvaging of failed ileal pouchanal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:492–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stryker SJ, Phillips SF, Dozois RR, Kelly KA, Beart RW Jr. Anal and neorectal function after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Ann Surg 1986;203:55–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Oresland R, Fasth S, Nordgren S, Hulten L. Pouch size: the important functional determinant after restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 1990;77:265–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tuckson WB, Fazio VW. Functional comparison between double and triple ileal loop pouches. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:17–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. O'Connell PR, Pemberton JH, Brown ML, Kelly KA. Determinants of stool frequency after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Am J Surg 1987;153:157–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Beart RW Jr, Dozois RR, Wolff BG, Pemberton JH. Mechanisms of rectal continence: lessons from the ilealanal procedure. Am J Surg 1985;149:31–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Harms BA, Pahl AC, Starling JR. Comparison of clinical and compliance characteristics between S and W ileal reservoirs. Am J Surg 1989;159:34–40.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Taylor BM, Beart RW Jr, Dozois RR, Kelly KA, Phillips SF. Straight ileoanal anastomosisversus ileal pouch-anal anastomosis after colectomy and mucosal proctectomy. Arch Surg 1983;118:696–701.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rabau MY, Percy JP, Parks AG. Ileal pelvic reservoir: a correlation between motor patterns and clinical behaviour. Br J Surg 1982;69:391–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Harms BA, Pellet JR, Starling JR. Modified quadrupleloop (W) ileal reservoir for restorative proctocolectomy. Surgery 1987;101:234–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goes R, Beart RW Jr. Physiology of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: current concepts. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:996–1005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Taylor BM, Cranley B, Kelly KA, Phillips DF, Beart RW Jr, Dozois RR. A clinicophysiologic comparison of ileal pouch-anal and straight ileoanal anastomosis. Ann Surg 1983;198:462–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nasmyth DG, Johnston D, Godwin PG, Dixon MF, Smith A, Williams NS. Factors influencing bowel function after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 1986;73:469–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Farouk R, Duthie GS, Bartolo DC. Recovery of the internal anal sphincter and continence after restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 1994;81:1065–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, June 22 to 26, 1997.

About this article

Cite this article

Klas, J., Myers, G.A., Starling, J.R. et al. Physiologic evaluation and surgical management of failed ileoanal pouch. Dis Colon Rectum 41, 854–861 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02235365

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02235365

Key words

Navigation