Abstract

BackgroundIleal pouch-anal anastomosis is most commonly performed by double-stapling technique after rectal transection with a linear stapler. Double-stapling is increasingly criticized for the uneven longer cuffs and potential weak points. A transanal rectal transection and single-stapled anastomosis may potentially overcome the limitations of double-stapling. A single-stapled anastomosis may be accomplished through a transanal rectal transection followed by bottom-up dissection (transanal-ileal pouch-anal anastomosis) or through an abdominal, rectal dissection and subsequent transanal transection and single-stapled anastomosis. The purpose of this study is to compare short-term and functional outcomes of double-stapling versus single-stapled techniques for ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. MethodsThis is a single-institution, ambidirectional study. Patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis between 2014 and 2021 were included in the study and allocated into 2 groups: group 1, including double stapled ileal pouch anal anastomosis, and group 2, including single-stapled-ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. The primary endpoint was the difference in functional parameters. ResultsA total of 130 patients were included, 46 undergoing double-stapling-ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and 84 receiving single-stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Rectal-cuff length (defined as the distance between the dentate line and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis) was shorter after single-stapled compared with double-stapling ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (1.98 ± 0.21 vs 2.20 ± 0.53 cm, P = .01). Anastomotic leak rate was comparable between group 1 and group 2 (6% vs 5%, P = .69). Functional parameters were comparable except for urgency, which was lower for single-stapled compared with double-stapling ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (8%, vs 30%, P = .002). ConclusionSingle-stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis was associated with a shorter rectal cuff and lower urgency than double-stapling ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. In our opinion, these results warrant a prospective multicentric trial to scrutinize and confirm these benefits on a larger scale.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.