Quality of life after indefinite diversion/pouch excision in ileal pouch failure patients

[Guest guest]

Colorectal Disease

Volume 9 Issue 8 Page 718-724, October 2007

To cite this article: P. Das, J. J. , P. P. Tekkis, A. G. Heriot, M. Antropoli, R. Nicholls (2007) Quality of life after indefinite diversion/pouch excision in ileal pouch failure patients Colorectal Disease 9 (8), 718–724. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01216.x

Original article

Quality of life after indefinite diversion/pouch excision in ileal pouch failure patients

Professor R. J. Nicholls, Department of Surgery, St Mark's Hospital, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3UJ, UK.E-mail: nichollsjohnstella@...

Abstract

Objective

Pouch failure occurs in up to 10% of patients over a 10-year period for a variety of reasons. One surgical option is pouch excision (PE) and form a permanent ileostomy. This is a major procedure with potential serious complications. An alternative is indefinite diversion (ID) of the pouch without excision. The aim of this study was to examine the quality of life and functional outcome in these two groups of patients.

Method

Ninety-seven patients were identified from the database to have either PE or ID. Fifty-three patients (17 men) responded; comprising 31 patients after PE and 22 patients with ID in a case–control study and completed the SF-36 general health survey and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) functional outcomes questionnaire.

Results

There was no significant difference in the domains of SF-36 between the two groups (P > 0.18). All patients with PE had an end ileostomy whereas most patients with ID had a loop ileostomy (18 loop vs 4 end). There was no difference in stoma related complications except for stoma retraction in ID (7% vs 47%; P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in urinary symptoms between PE and ID groups (weak stream 26% vs 14%; P = 0.49, nocturia 22% vs 4%; P = 0.12, urgency 22% vs 9%; P = 0.28, urinary incontinence 22% vs 14%; P = 0.72 respectively). There was no difference in sexually active patients (73% vs 94%; P = 0.11). Of the seven male PE patients, five (71%) could achieve an erection and four (57%) could maintain an erection, compared with all 10 male patients in the ID group (P = 0.151 and 0.05 respectively). Thirty-three per cent of patients with PE and 62% of patients with ID reported that they would have pouch surgery again if indicated (P = 0.052) and 58% of patients with PE and 81% of patients with ID reported that they would recommend pouch surgery to others (P = 0.129). No case of dysplasia was seen in 18 of 22 ID patients in whom histology was available.

Conclusion

Quality of life after PE or ID was no different and male sexual function was significantly better after ID. Retraction of the stoma was more common in this group.