P277 Ileo-rectal anastomosis vs. ileoanal pouch in ulcerative colitis: clinical outcome in a real-life experience

Abstract

Abstract Background In ulcerative colitis (UC) surgery is required in about 10–20% of patients (patients). Evidence regarding the long-term outcome of Ileo-rectal anastomosis (IRA) vs. the recently proposed ileal pouch (IPAA) are still lacking. In a real-life, retrospective, single-centre study, we aimed to assess the clinical outcome of all UC patients with IRA or IPAA. Methods In a retrospective study, clinical records of UC patients with IPAA or IRA in regular follow-up from January 2001 to September2019 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria: (1) UC diagnosis; (2) Age ≥18 years; (3) IPAA or IRA for UC;4)Detailed clinical history; (5) follow up ≥1 year after surgery. The following parameters were reported: demographic and clinical characteristics, hospitalisation, additional surgery, mortality, dysplasia/cancer of the ileum and/or rectum, number of endoscopies and outpatient visits, stool frequency and treatments. The quality of life (QoL) are being evaluated. Data were expressed as median (range), differences among groups assessed by chi-squared test or unpaired T-test. Results A total 84(4%) UC patients with IPAA (n = 47) or IRA (n = 37) were detected among 2136 UC patients. Among these 84 UC patients, in a preliminary assessment, clinical outcome was evaluated in 31 patients (16 IPAA,15 IRA) with a median follow up of 72 [12–180] months (mos) and a median time interval from surgery of 63 [1–348] mos. Considering the 16 patients with IPAA (8 M, 9 F) vs. the 15 with IRA (5 M,10 F), the median age at first assessment was 44 [range 30–56] vs. 48 [range 23–82] in patients with IPAA or IRA, respectively (p = 0.2123). The median follow up after surgery was 65 [range 12–132] vs. 79 [range 12–180] mos (p = 0.1955). The median time interval from surgery to first clinical assessment after surgery was 48 [range 1–312] vs. 78 [range 2–348] mos (p = 0.1955). Indication for surgery was refractory UC in 30 patients and endoscopic perforation in 1 pt. During the follow up, the following outcomes after surgery were recorded in patients with IPAA vs. IRA: hospitalised patients (n = 6 vs. n = 6 patients, p = 0.8864); additional intestinal surgery (n = 0 vs. n = 4 patients, p = 0.0269), mortality (n = 0 vs. n = 1 patients,p = 0.2938); occurrence of dysplasia/cancer of the ileum and/or rectum (n = 0 vs. n = 2 patients, p = 0.1310), number endoscopies after surgery (mean: 4 vs. n = 3.75, p = 0.316348), number visits after surgery (mean: 2.4/year vs. n = 1.7/year, p = 0.2429), mean stool frequency (n = 8.08 vs. n = 4.36; (p = 0.0005), need of biologics, n = 5 vs. n = 1 (p = 0.0834). Conclusion In a real-life experience, the need for intestinal surgery was significantly higher in patients with IRA vs. IPAA; the mean daily stool frequency was significantly higher in patients with IPAA vs. IRA.No statistically significant differences were found among the two groups in terms of hospitalisation, mortality, cancer/dysplasia and need for biologics.