» Articles » PMID: 2768996

Manovolumetric Characteristics and Functional Results in Three Different Pelvic Pouch Designs

Overview
Date 1989 Aug 1
PMID 2768996
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Different pouch designs and techniques for the perineal approach have been on trial in an attempt to improve results after restorative proctocolectomy. The 1-year results of two currently advocated procedures, the J-pouch and the S-pouch, were compared with the results obtained in patients with a pelvic pouch fashioned according to the folding technique used for the Kock continent ileostomy, all pouches having been constructed from equal 30 cm lengths of ileum. The maximal volume of the S- and Kock pouches at one year was 420 ml (250-570) (median and (range] and 410 ml (244-490) respectively, while it was significantly less, 305 ml (200-445) in the J-pouch (p less than 0.05). The compliance of the J-pouches was also significantly lower at all distension pressures. The median day-time defaecation frequency was four and was equal in the three groups. Although there was a tendency towards a more favourable overall functional result with less soiling, and less need for night evacuations among patients with a Kock-folded pouch compared to the other pouch types these differences failed to reach statistical significance. The favourable properties of the Kock pouch, well-known also from the conteinent ileostomy and urostomy, suggest that its design should be considered an interesting alternative even for restorative proctocolectomy. These encouraging results have yet to be confirmed in a comparative randomized trial.

Citing Articles

Preoperative anorectal manometry as a predictor of function after ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stephens I, Byrnes K, McCawley N, Burke J Tech Coloproctol. 2024; 29(1):1.

PMID: 39576416 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-024-03035-w.


MRI defecography of the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis-contributes little to the understanding of functional outcome.

Sunde M, Negard A, Oresland T, Bakka N, Geitung J, Faerden A Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018; 33(5):609-617.

PMID: 29520456 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-018-3011-0.


[The technique of restorative proctocolectomy with ileal J‑pouch : Standards and controversies].

Hardt J, Kienle P Chirurg. 2017; 88(7):559-565.

PMID: 28477064 DOI: 10.1007/s00104-017-0434-z.


Sacral nerve function in child patients after ileal J-pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis.

Tomita R, Sugito K, Sakurai K, Fujisaki S, Koshinaga T Int Surg. 2014; 99(5):506-11.

PMID: 25216412 PMC: 4253915. DOI: 10.9738/INTSURG-D-13-00043.1.


Technical aspects of ileoanal pouch surgery.

Carne P, Pemberton J Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2009; 17(1):35-41.

PMID: 20011283 PMC: 2780069. DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-823069.


References
1.
Nicholls R . Restorative proctocolectomy with various types of reservoir. World J Surg. 1987; 11(6):751-62. DOI: 10.1007/BF01656598. View

2.
Nasmyth D, Johnston D, Godwin P, Dixon M, Smith A, Williams N . Factors influencing bowel function after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg. 1986; 73(6):469-73. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800730617. View

3.
Thomson W, Simpson A, Wheeler J . Mathematical prediction of ileal pouch capacity. Br J Surg. 1987; 74(7):567-8. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800740706. View

4.
Harms B, Hamilton J, Yamamoto D, Starling J . Quadruple-loop (W) ileal pouch reconstruction after proctocolectomy: analysis and functional results. Surgery. 1987; 102(4):561-7. View

5.
Nicholls R, Lubowski D . Restorative proctocolectomy: the four loop (W) reservoir. Br J Surg. 1987; 74(7):564-6. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800740705. View