Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic vs open approaches to ileal pouch surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aims

The present meta-analysis compared short-term outcomes between patients undergoing laparoscopic and open restorative proctocolectomy.

Methods

A literature search of Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Ovid, Excerpta Medica and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies published between 1990 and 2006 comparing laparoscopic and open restorative proctocolectomy. A random-effect meta-analytical technique was used, and sensitivity analysis was performed on studies published since 2001, higher-quality papers, those reporting on more than 30 patients and those with matching of patient characteristics.

Results

Ten studies satisfied the selection criteria, including outcomes on 329 patients, 168 (51.1%) of whom underwent laparoscopic resection. Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group by 86 min (p<0.001) and throughout the subgroup analysis, but this finding was associated with significant heterogeneity. Operative blood loss was less in the laparoscopic group by 84 ml. There was no significant difference in post-operative adverse events between the groups. A statistically significant reduction in length of post-operative stay was observed for laparoscopic patients in high-quality studies and those reporting on more than 30 patients by 1.1 days (p=0.02 in both subgroups) and studies published in or since 2001 by 3.0 days (p=0.004) but not overall.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic ileal pouch surgery was associated with longer operative time, lower blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay and similar short-term adverse events compared with open surgery. Comparative data on quality of life and long-term outcomes are currently unavailable. The potential advantage of laparoscopic ileal pouch surgery remains to be established.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Parks AG, Nicholls RJ (1978) Proctocolectomy without ileostomy for ulcerative colitis. BMJ 2:85–88

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Garbus JE, Potenti F, Wexner SD (2003) Current controversies in pouch surgery. South Med J 96:32–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fazio VW, Ziv Y, Church JM, Oakley JR, Lavery IC, Milsom JW, Schroeder TK (1995) Ileal pouch–anal anastomoses complications and function in 1005 patients. Ann Surg 222:120–127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Romanos J, Samarasekera DN, Stebbing JF, Jewell DP, Kettlewell MG, Mortensen NJ (1997) Outcome of 200 restorative proctocolectomy operations: the John Radcliffe Hospital experience. Br J Surg 84:814–818

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson E, Carlsen E, Nazir M, Nygaard K (2001) Morbidity and functional outcome after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. Eur J Surg 167:40–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wheeler JM, Banerjee A, Ahuja N, Jewell DP, Mortensen NJ (2005) Long-term function after restorative proctocolectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 48:946–951

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pace DE, Seshadri PA, Chiasson PM, Poulin EC, Schlachta CM, Mamazza J (2002) Early experience with laparoscopic ileal pouch–anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:337–341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hasegawa H, Watanabe M, Baba H, Nishibori H, Kitajima M (2002) Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy for patients with ulcerative colitis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 12:403–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kienle P, Z’Graggen K, Schmidt J, Benner A, Weitz J, Buchler MW (2005) Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 92:88–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kohler L (1999) Endoscopic surgery: what has passed the test? World J Surg 23:816–824

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Clarke M, Horton R (2001) Bringing it all together: Lancet–Cochrane collaborate on systematic reviews. Lancet 357:1728

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. JAMA 283:2008–2012

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta–analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P (1985) Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 27:335–371

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22:719–748

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Athanasiou T, Al-Ruzzeh S, Kumar P, Crossman MC, Amrani M, Pepper JR, Del Stanbridge R, Casula R, Glenville B (2004) Off-pump myocardial revascularization is associated with less incidence of stroke in elderly patients. Ann Thorac Surg 77:745–753

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Egger M, Smith GD (1995) Misleading meta-analysis. BMJ 311:753–754

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Araki Y, Ishibashi N, Ogata Y, Shirouzu K, Isomoto H (2001) The usefulness of restorative laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy for ulcerative colitis. Kurume Med J 48:99–103

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Brown SR, Eu KW, Seow-Choen F (2001) Consecutive series of laparoscopic-assisted vs. minilaparotomy restorative proctocolectomies. Dis Colon Rectum 44:397–400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dunker MS, Bemelman WA, Slors JF, van Duijvendijk P, Gouma DJ (2001) Functional outcome, quality of life, body image, and cosmesis in patients after laparoscopic-assisted and conventional restorative proctocolectomy: a comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 44:1800–1807

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hashimoto A, Funayama Y, Naito H, Fukushima K, Shibata C, Naitoh T, Shibuya K, Koyama K, Takahashi K, Ogawa H, Satoh S, Ueno T, Kitayama T, Matsuno S, Sasaki I (2001) Laparascope-assisted versus conventional restorative proctocolectomy with rectal mucosectomy. Surg Today 31:210–214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kienle P, Weitz J, Benner A, Herfarth C, Schmidt J (2003) Laparoscopically assisted colectomy and ileoanal pouch procedure with and without protective ileostomy. Surg Endosc 17:716–720

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Maartense S, Dunker MS, Slors JF, Cuesta MA, Gouma DJ, van Deventer SJ, van Bodegraven AA, Bemelman WA (2004) Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 240:984–991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Marcello PW, Milsom JW, Wong SK, Hammerhofer KA, Goormastic M, Church JM, Fazio VW (2000) Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: case-matched comparative study with open restorative proctocolectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 43:604–608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rivadeneira DE, Marcello PW, Roberts PL, Rusin LC, Murray JJ, Coller JA, Schoetz DJ Jr (2004) Benefits of hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: a comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1371–1376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Seow-Choen F, Eu KW, Leong AF, Ho YH (1999) A consecutive series of open compared to laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy with ileo-pouch anal anastomosis for familial adenomatous polyposis. Tech Coloproctol 3:83–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wexner SD, Johansen OB, Nogueras JJ, Jagelman DG (1992) Laparoscopic total abdominal colectomy. A prospective trial. Dis Colon Rectum 35:651–655

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Young-Fadok TM, Dozois EJ, Sandborn WJ, Tremaine WJ (2001) A case-matched study of laparoscopic proctocolectomy and ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (PC–IPAA) versus open PC–IPAA for ulcerative colitis (UC). Gastroenterology 120:A452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schmitt SL, Cohen SM, Wexner SD, Nogueras JJ, Jagelman DG (1994) Does laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch anal anastomosis reduce the length of hospitalization? Int J Colorectal Dis 9:134–137

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Larson DW, Dozois EJ, Piotrowicz K, Cima RR, Wolff BG, Young-Fadok TM (2005) Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: functional outcome in a case-matched series. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1845–1850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tekkis PP, Fazio VW, Lavery IC, Remzi FH, Senagore AJ, Wu JS, Strong SA, Poloneicki JD, Hull TL, Church JM (2005) Evaluation of the learning curve in ileal pouch–anal anastomosis surgery. Ann Surg 241:262–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fazio VW, Tekkis PP, Remzi F, Lavery IC, Manilich E, Connor J, Preen M, Delaney CP (2003) Quantification of risk for pouch failure after ileal pouch anal anastomosis surgery. Ann Surg 238:605–614

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tiainen J, Matikainen M, Hiltunen KM (1999) Ileal J-pouch–anal anastomosis, sexual dysfunction, and fertility. Scand J Gastroenterol 34:185–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Johnson P, Richard C, Ravid A, Spencer L, Pinto E, Hanna M, Cohen Z, McLeod R (2004) Female infertility after ileal pouch–anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1119–1126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Alabaz O, Iroatulam AJ, Nessim A, Weiss EG, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD (2000) Comparison of laparoscopically assisted and conventional ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Eur J Surg 166:213–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Dunker MS, Stiggelbout AM, van Hogezand RA, Ringers J, Griffioen G, Bemelman WA (1998) Cosmesis and body image after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Surg Endosc 12:1334–1340

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Pokala N, Delaney CP, Senagore AJ, Brady KM, Fazio VW (2005) Laparoscopic vs open total colectomy: a case-matched comparative study. Surg Endosc 19:531–535

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Duepree HJ, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Brady KM, Fazio VW (2002) Advantages of laparoscopic resection for ileocecal Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45:605–610

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Shore G, Gonzalez QH, Bondora A, Vickers SM (2003) Laparoscopic vs conventional ileocolectomy for primary Crohn disease. Arch Surg 138:76–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Young-Fadok TM, HallLong K, McConnell EJ, Gomez Rey G, Cabanela RL (2001) Advantages of laparoscopic resection for ileocolic Crohn’s disease. Improved outcomes and reduced costs. Surg Endosc 15:450–454

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the help and advice of Mr. Thanos Athanasiou, clinical senior lecturer at Imperial College London, in developing the statistical methods and quality scoring used in the analysis of data for this article. H.S.T. is supported by a surgical research fellowship from the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Henry S. Tilney, Richard E. Lovegrove, Alexander G. Heriot, Sanjay Purkayastha, Vasilis Constantinides & Paris P. Tekkis

  2. Department of Surgery, St Mark’s Hospital, Harrow, UK

    R. John Nicholls & Paris P. Tekkis

  3. Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, St. Mary’s Hospital, 10th Floor, QEQM Wing, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK

    Paris P. Tekkis

Authors
  1. Henry S. Tilney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard E. Lovegrove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander G. Heriot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sanjay Purkayastha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vasilis Constantinides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. John Nicholls
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paris P. Tekkis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paris P. Tekkis.

Additional information

This paper was presented as a podium presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, Edinburgh 2006 and as a poster at the 2006 Scientific Session of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tilney, H.S., Lovegrove, R.E., Heriot, A.G. et al. Comparison of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic vs open approaches to ileal pouch surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 22, 531–542 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-006-0177-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-006-0177-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation