Aim: To assess short- and long-term outcomes of redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (redo-IPAA) for failed IPAA, comparing them with those of successful IPAA.
Method: This was a case-control study. Data were collected retrospectively from prospectively maintained databases from two tertiary care centres. Patients who had a redo-IPAA between 1999 and 2016 were identified and matched (1:2) with patients who had a primary IPAA (p-IPAA), according to diagnosis, age and body mass index.
Results: Thirty-nine redo-IPAAs (16 transanal and 23 abdominal procedures) were identified, and were matched with 78 p-IPAAs. After a mean follow-up of 56 ± 51 (2.6-190) months, failure rates after transanal and abdominal approaches were 50% and 15%, respectively. Reoperation after the transanal approach was higher than after p-IPAA (69% vs 7%; P < 0.001). No differences were noted between the abdominal approach for redo-IPAA and p-IPAA in terms of morbidity (61% for redo-IPAA vs 38% for p-IPAA; P = 0.06), major morbidity (9% vs 8%; P = 0.96), anastomotic leakage (13% vs 10%; P = 0.74), mean daily bowel movements (6 vs 5.5; P = 0.68), night-time bowel movements (1.2 vs 1; P = 0.51), faecal incontinence (13% vs 7%; P = 0.40), urgency (31% vs 27%; P = 0.59), use of anti-diarrhoeal drugs (47% vs 37%; P = 0.70), mean Cleveland Global Quality-of-Life score (7 vs 7; P = 0.83) or sexual function.
Conclusion: The abdominal approach for redo-IPAA is justified in cases of pouch failure because it achieves functional results comparable with those observed after p-IPAA, without higher postoperative morbidity. The transanal approach should be chosen sparingly.
Keywords: Pouch surgery; ileal pouch-anal anastomosis; polyposis; redo; salvage; ulcerative colits.
Colorectal Disease © 2018 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.