Background: There are very few studies and no consensus concerning the choice between two- and three-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [IPAA] in inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD]. This study aimed to compare operative results between both surgical procedures.
Methods: Only patients who underwent a laparoscopic IPAA for IBD were included. They were divided into two groups: two-stage [IPAA and stoma closure] [Group A] and three-stage IPAA [subtotal colectomy, IPAA, stoma closure] [Group B].
Results: From 2000 to 2015, 185 patients (107 men, median age of 42 [range, 15-78] years) were divided into Groups A [n = 82] and B [n = 103]. Patients in Group B were younger than in Group A (39 [15-78] vs 43 [16-74] years; p = 0.019), presented more frequently with Crohn's disease [16% vs 5%; p < 0.04], and were more frequently operated in emergency for acute colitis [37% vs 1%; p < 0.0001]. Cumulative operative time and length of stay were significantly longer in Group B (580 [300-900] min, and 19 [13-60] days) than in Group A (290 [145-490] min and 10 [7-47] days; p < 0.0001). Cumulative postoperative morbidity, delay for stoma closure, and function were similar between the two groups. Long-term morbidity was similar between Group A [13%] and Group B [21%; p = 0.18].
Conclusions: Our study suggested that postoperative morbidity was similar between two- and three-stage laparoscopic IPAA. It suggested that the three-stage procedure is probably safer for high-risk patients [ie in acute colitis].
Keywords: Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis; inflammatory bowel diseases.
Copyright © 2016 European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected].