Skip to main content
Gut logoLink to Gut
. 1993 Jul;34(7):948–952. doi: 10.1136/gut.34.7.948

Restorative proctocolectomy with end to end pouch-anal anastomosis in patients over the age of fifty.

W G Lewis 1, P M Sagar 1, P J Holdsworth 1, A T Axon 1, D Johnston 1
PMCID: PMC1374232  PMID: 8344583

Abstract

This study was to examine whether 'fit' patients over the age of 50 who require elective surgery for ulcerative colitis are suitable candidates for restorative proctocolectomy, providing that they are continent before operation and that the anal sphincter is preserved in its entirety without stripping of the mucosa or endoanal anastomosis. Between 1986 and 1991, 18 patients 50 to 66 years old (median 55 years: nine men) underwent restorative proctocolectomy with end to end ileoanal anastomosis without mucosal stripping (12 quadruplicated (W), four duplicated (J), two no reservoir). The results were compared 12 (range three to 24) months later with those of 18 matched patients who were less than 50 years of age (median 34 years). In patients over 50, median resting anal pressure was 88 (range 44-131) cm water before and 80 (47-138) cm water after the operation (NS). In patients under 50, median resting anal pressure was 76 (51-128) cm water before and 77 (36-137) cm water after operation (NS). Resting anal pressure in older patients did not differ significantly from that in younger patients either before or after the operation. Both sensory and reflex anal functions were preserved as well after operation in the older patients as in the younger ones. The clinical results in patients over 50 were slightly inferior to the results for the younger patients, but the difference was small and not significant. Hence age alone is not a contraindication to restorative surgery provided that the anal sphincter is preserved in its entirety.

Full text

PDF
949

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bannister J. J., Abouzekry L., Read N. W. Effect of aging on anorectal function. Gut. 1987 Mar;28(3):353–357. doi: 10.1136/gut.28.3.353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Choen S., Tsunoda A., Nicholls R. J. Prospective randomized trial comparing anal function after hand sewn ileoanal anastomosis with mucosectomy versus stapled ileoanal anastomosis without mucosectomy in restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg. 1991 Apr;78(4):430–434. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800780415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Everett W. G. Experience of restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir. Br J Surg. 1989 Jan;76(1):77–81. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800760125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Johnston D., Holdsworth P. J., Nasmyth D. G., Neal D. E., Primrose J. N., Womack N., Axon A. T. Preservation of the entire anal canal in conservative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis: a pilot study comparing end-to-end ileo-anal anastomosis without mucosal resection with mucosal proctectomy and endo-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg. 1987 Oct;74(10):940–944. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800741020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Johnston D., Williams N. S., Neal D. E., Axon A. I. The value of preserving the anal sphincter in operations for ulcerative colitis and polyposis: a review of 22 mucosal proctectomies. Br J Surg. 1981 Dec;68(12):874–878. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800681213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Keighley M. R., Henry M. M., Bartolo D. C., Mortensen N. J. Anorectal physiology measurement: report of a working party. Br J Surg. 1989 Apr;76(4):356–357. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800760414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kelly K. A. Anal sphincter-saving operations for chronic ulcerative colitis. Am J Surg. 1992 Jan;163(1):5–11. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(92)90244-l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Martin L. W., Torres A. M., Fischer J. E., Alexander F. The critical level for preservation of continence in the ileoanal anastomosis. J Pediatr Surg. 1985 Dec;20(6):664–667. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3468(85)80020-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Metcalf A. M., Dozois R. R., Kelly K. A., Beart R. W., Jr, Wolff B. G. Ileal "J" pouch-anal anastomosis. Clinical outcome. Ann Surg. 1985 Dec;202(6):735–739. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198512000-00013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Nasmyth D. G., Johnston D., Godwin P. G., Dixon M. F., Smith A., Williams N. S. Factors influencing bowel function after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg. 1986 Jun;73(6):469–473. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800730617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Neal D. E., Williams N. S., Johnston D. Rectal, bladder and sexual function after mucosal proctectomy with and without a pelvic reservoir for colitis and polyposis. Br J Surg. 1982 Oct;69(10):599–604. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800691015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Nicholls R. J., Belliveau P., Neill M., Wilks M., Tabaqchali S. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir: a pathophysiological assessment. Gut. 1981 Jun;22(6):462–468. doi: 10.1136/gut.22.6.462. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Nicholls R. J., Pezim M. E. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: a comparison of three reservoir designs. Br J Surg. 1985 Jun;72(6):470–474. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800720622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Pescatori M., Mattana C. Factors affecting anal continence after restorative proctocolectomy. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1990 Dec;5(4):213–218. doi: 10.1007/BF00303279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Roe A. M., Bartolo D. C., Mortensen N. J. New method for assessment of anal sensation in various anorectal disorders. Br J Surg. 1986 Apr;73(4):310–312. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800730421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Utsunomiya J., Iwama T., Imajo M., Matsuo S., Sawai S., Yaegashi K., Hirayama R. Total colectomy, mucosal proctectomy, and ileoanal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1980 Oct;23(7):459–466. doi: 10.1007/BF02987076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Gut are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES