**Surgical Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis**

Gianluca Pellino1, Guido Sciaudone1, Gabriele Riegler2, Silvestro Canonico1 and Francesco Selvaggi1

*1General Surgery Unit 2Division of Gastroenterology Second University of Naples Italy* 

#### **1. Introduction**

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an ubiquitously distributed inflammatory bowel disease. Its incidence varies slightly between geographical areas, most likely because of either the different genetic patrimonies of the involved populations or several environmental factors. In socially evolved Countries UC incidence is of approximately 6 cases per 100.000 white adult individuals, with a prevalence of 40-100/100.000. This incidence notably decreases in Countries with lower socio-economic levels. Female gender is slightly more affected than male, with a gender ratio F/M of 1.5/1.

The aetiology of UC still remains mainly unknown, even if a multifactorial genesis is now widely accepted.

Unlike Crohn's disease, UC is a continuous disease involving mainly the rectum, suddenly expanding proximally to the colon, with no alternation of healthy or diseased mucosal area. Figure 1 depicts the possible localization of UC at the time of clinical presentation (Binder et al., 1982; Stonnington et al., 1987)

Fig. 1. Extension of ulcerative colitis at presentation

Surgical Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis 5

It occurs in 5-10% of patients (with perforation 0.9-1.6%) (Kirsner & Shorter, 1982). Bowel dilatation >6 cm represents an absolute indication to surgery. In such patients a subtotal colectomy with closure of the rectal stump and Brooke terminal ileostomy is recommended.

It is a rare complication (3%), that can usually be managed with medical treatment or with rectal washout with adrenaline in saline solution (1/200.000). If it is not possible, there is indication to surgery; it should be considered, however, that haemorrhage can continue in the residual rectum, if a subtotal colectomy is performed (12%) (Kirsner & Shorter, 1982).

An acute episode of colitis is defined *severe* if bowel movements with blood are more than 6 in 24 hours, median afternoon temperature is >37.5°C or median entire day temperature is >37.7°C at least 2 out of 4 days, hearth rate is >90 bpm, ESR is >30, Hb is <10 g/dL. Such a condition, occurring in 10-15% of patients (Truelove & Jewell, 1974), requires intensive medical therapy with correction of hydro-electrolytic disturbances, albumin and corticosteroid infusion, plasma and/or blood infusion, total parenteral nutrition. Treatment should be tried for a maximum of 5 days; if there is no improvement of patient condition, emergency colectomy is required (Truelove & Witts, 1955; Turnbull et al., 1971). Most Authors believe, however, that if a plain abdominal radiograph documents colonic dilatation >6/7 cm or mucosal islands, surgical intervention should be performed after 24 hours of ineffective therapy at most (Bartram, 1987). In 1975 Lennard-Jones (Lennard-Jones et al., 1975) suggested some parameters predicting poor response to medical treatment

Factor % Failure

In patients with debilitating symptoms, a poor nutritional condition and an unsatisfactory quality of life despite adequate medical therapy, the eventuality of an elective surgical intervention should be considered. Some Authors (Mitchell et al., 1988) suggested that a prolonged medical treatment could increase the probability of surgery in emergency settings with consequential increase of morbidity, hospital stay and costs. Moreover, the prolonged medical treatment which UC patients often need, can have important secondary effects such as psychosis, hypertension, cataract, osteoporosis, insomuch as some Authors (Sagar et al., 1993) report a better quality of life in patients undergoing RP than in those

Bowel movements > 9/24h Bowel movements > 12/24h Temperature > 38 °C Albumin < 3 g/dl Mucosal islands on plain adbominal rx

Table 2. Factors predicting poor response to medical treatment

It probably represents the most common indication to surgery.

**2.5 Failure of medical therapy** 

receiving prolonged medical treatment.

**2.2 Toxic megacolon** 

**2.3 Hemorrhage** 

**2.4 Severe colitis** 

(Table 2).

In case of pancolitis, in about 10-20% of patients also the last 5-15 cm of distal ileum can be involved, with ulcerated lesions of the mucosa, pathologically undistinguishable from colon lesions, picture defined as *backwash ileitis.* Disease usually presents with an acute attack or with a relapse in patients with an history of muco-haematic diarrhoea (Edwards & Truelove, 1963).

Even if only the complete removal of involved organs – colon and rectum – ensures complete recovery, the treatment of UC is, initially, mainly medical, based on drugs such as corticosteroids, salicylates, immunomodulators, and, more recently, biologics.

However, between 20 and 40% of patients will require surgery (Leijonmarck et al., 1990). Extension of the disease represents an important factor influencing treatment choice. In fact, only 2% of patients with a disease confined to the rectum require surgery during the 5 years after the diagnosis, whereas 35% of patients with pancolitis will be operated on (Richie, 1974).

Indications to surgery consist of complications, such as toxic megacolon, perforation, hemorrhage, presence of intractable extra-intestinal manifestations, risk of carcinoma, and failure of medical treatment.

During years, surgical treatment of UC has dramatically changed, even if still ensuring disease eradication. In fact, giving an alternative to proctococolectomy with definitive ileostomy, option very humiliating for the patient, Parks and Nicholls (Parks & Nicholls, 1978) proposed in 1978 the *restorative proctocolectomy* (RP), fashioning an ileal reservoir (*pouch*) that offered patients a radical treatment of the disease but also a good anal function, preserving intestinal continuity and the anus in its natural site. This intervention, consisting of removal of the entire colon and rectum to the *linea dentata*, hence preserving the sphincters, followed by fashioning of a neo-rectum with the last ileal loops and ileo-anal anastomosis, represented a revolution in surgical treatment of UC, rapidly becoming the intervention of choice for UC in selected centres (Pemberton et al., 1987; Williams, 1989; Selvaggi et al., 1996)

#### **2. Indications to surgery**

Indications to surgical treatment of UC can be distinguished in indications to elective and emergency – relative or absolute – surgery (Table 1).


Table 1. Indications to surgical treatment of UC

The rate of patients at risk of experiencing an acute complication of UC (perforation, toxic megacolon, hemorrhage, severe colitis) ranges between 10 and 20% (Jewell, 1987; Truelove, 1988).

#### **2.1 Perforation**

It usually occurs in patients presenting with dilatation of the colon. It represents an absolute indication to surgical intervention in emergency settings and tends to occur soon during the course of the disease, before bowel thickening. Incidence of perforation is reported to be as high as 3% (Kirsner & Shorter, 1982)

#### **2.2 Toxic megacolon**

4 Ulcerative Colitis – Treatments, Special Populations and the Future

In case of pancolitis, in about 10-20% of patients also the last 5-15 cm of distal ileum can be involved, with ulcerated lesions of the mucosa, pathologically undistinguishable from colon lesions, picture defined as *backwash ileitis.* Disease usually presents with an acute attack or with a relapse in patients with an history of muco-haematic diarrhoea (Edwards & Truelove, 1963). Even if only the complete removal of involved organs – colon and rectum – ensures complete recovery, the treatment of UC is, initially, mainly medical, based on drugs such as

However, between 20 and 40% of patients will require surgery (Leijonmarck et al., 1990). Extension of the disease represents an important factor influencing treatment choice. In fact, only 2% of patients with a disease confined to the rectum require surgery during the 5 years after the diagnosis, whereas 35% of patients with pancolitis will be operated on (Richie, 1974). Indications to surgery consist of complications, such as toxic megacolon, perforation, hemorrhage, presence of intractable extra-intestinal manifestations, risk of carcinoma, and

During years, surgical treatment of UC has dramatically changed, even if still ensuring disease eradication. In fact, giving an alternative to proctococolectomy with definitive ileostomy, option very humiliating for the patient, Parks and Nicholls (Parks & Nicholls, 1978) proposed in 1978 the *restorative proctocolectomy* (RP), fashioning an ileal reservoir (*pouch*) that offered patients a radical treatment of the disease but also a good anal function, preserving intestinal continuity and the anus in its natural site. This intervention, consisting of removal of the entire colon and rectum to the *linea dentata*, hence preserving the sphincters, followed by fashioning of a neo-rectum with the last ileal loops and ileo-anal anastomosis, represented a revolution in surgical treatment of UC, rapidly becoming the intervention of choice for UC in selected centres (Pemberton et al., 1987; Williams, 1989;

Indications to surgical treatment of UC can be distinguished in indications to elective and

The rate of patients at risk of experiencing an acute complication of UC (perforation, toxic megacolon, hemorrhage, severe colitis) ranges between 10 and 20% (Jewell, 1987; Truelove,

It usually occurs in patients presenting with dilatation of the colon. It represents an absolute indication to surgical intervention in emergency settings and tends to occur soon during the course of the disease, before bowel thickening. Incidence of perforation is reported to be as

Elective surgery Absolute emergency Relative emergency

Perforation Toxic megacolon

Hemorrhage Severe colitis

corticosteroids, salicylates, immunomodulators, and, more recently, biologics.

failure of medical treatment.

Selvaggi et al., 1996)

1988).

**2.1 Perforation** 

**2. Indications to surgery** 

Failure of medical therapy Extraintestinal manifestations Preventing degeneration

high as 3% (Kirsner & Shorter, 1982)

emergency – relative or absolute – surgery (Table 1).

Table 1. Indications to surgical treatment of UC

It occurs in 5-10% of patients (with perforation 0.9-1.6%) (Kirsner & Shorter, 1982). Bowel dilatation >6 cm represents an absolute indication to surgery. In such patients a subtotal colectomy with closure of the rectal stump and Brooke terminal ileostomy is recommended.

#### **2.3 Hemorrhage**

It is a rare complication (3%), that can usually be managed with medical treatment or with rectal washout with adrenaline in saline solution (1/200.000). If it is not possible, there is indication to surgery; it should be considered, however, that haemorrhage can continue in the residual rectum, if a subtotal colectomy is performed (12%) (Kirsner & Shorter, 1982).

#### **2.4 Severe colitis**

An acute episode of colitis is defined *severe* if bowel movements with blood are more than 6 in 24 hours, median afternoon temperature is >37.5°C or median entire day temperature is >37.7°C at least 2 out of 4 days, hearth rate is >90 bpm, ESR is >30, Hb is <10 g/dL. Such a condition, occurring in 10-15% of patients (Truelove & Jewell, 1974), requires intensive medical therapy with correction of hydro-electrolytic disturbances, albumin and corticosteroid infusion, plasma and/or blood infusion, total parenteral nutrition. Treatment should be tried for a maximum of 5 days; if there is no improvement of patient condition, emergency colectomy is required (Truelove & Witts, 1955; Turnbull et al., 1971). Most Authors believe, however, that if a plain abdominal radiograph documents colonic dilatation >6/7 cm or mucosal islands, surgical intervention should be performed after 24 hours of ineffective therapy at most (Bartram, 1987). In 1975 Lennard-Jones (Lennard-Jones et al., 1975) suggested some parameters predicting poor response to medical treatment (Table 2).


Table 2. Factors predicting poor response to medical treatment

#### **2.5 Failure of medical therapy**

It probably represents the most common indication to surgery.

In patients with debilitating symptoms, a poor nutritional condition and an unsatisfactory quality of life despite adequate medical therapy, the eventuality of an elective surgical intervention should be considered. Some Authors (Mitchell et al., 1988) suggested that a prolonged medical treatment could increase the probability of surgery in emergency settings with consequential increase of morbidity, hospital stay and costs. Moreover, the prolonged medical treatment which UC patients often need, can have important secondary effects such as psychosis, hypertension, cataract, osteoporosis, insomuch as some Authors (Sagar et al., 1993) report a better quality of life in patients undergoing RP than in those receiving prolonged medical treatment.

Surgical Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis 7

alteration of body image leading to depression, isolation and impairment of social function

Total colectomy with ileo-rectal anastomosis proposed by Devine (Devine, 1943) and Corbett (Corbett, 1952) seems to avoid this problem because it does not require ileostomy, restoring intestinal continuity with ileo-rectal anastomosis. Furthermore, this intervention is able to ensure good results with low incidence of mortality – especially if performed in elective settings – and low incidence of anastomotic leakage and pelvic sepsis (Jones et al., 1977). The main advantage is that the preservation of anorectal function is possible avoiding genito-urinary dysfunctions due to proctectomy, with 4/5 evacuation/day. However, in a study from the Mayo Clinic involving 63 patients with IRA only 55% of patients was satisfied with function in the long term (Farnell & Adson, 1985). Moreover, about 1/3 of patients still need enemas with corticosteroids or sulfasalazine (Khubchandani et al., 1978). Colectomy with IRA does not remove the entire diseased organ, and the preservation of the rectum rises the risk of late carcinogenesis or of severe proctitis, which can affect long term results of the intervention and require subsequent proctectomy in 5-30% of patients (Parc et al., 1989). The presence of carcinoma, severe rectal disease and incompetence of the

For these reasons, researchers felt the need of perform interventions that could not only be curative and radical, but able to preserve sphincters and, therefore, an acceptable anal

To fulfill these aims, Parks and Nicholls (Parks & Nicholls, 1978) first described RP with ileal pouch in 1978, consisting of total colectomy, proximal proctectomy, mucosectomy of the distal rectum and ileopouch-anal anastomosis. The intervention which they proposed implied fashioning of an S-shaped ileal reservoir with three folded ileal loops anastomized

Subsequently Utsonomiya (Utsonomiya et al., 1980) perfectioned this reservoir, as it had important emptying problems due to the often excessive length of the efferent limb (about 5 cm), responsible for failure of spontaneous evacuation. In 1980 the Author proposed a Jshaped reservoir fashioned with two loops of small bowel. J-pouch, easy to perform even with mechanical staplers, avoided problems of S-pouch but it still comported an high number of evacuations, particularly during the first years after ileostomy reversal, hence in 1984 Nicholls (Nicholls & Pezim, 1984) suggested a new type of reservoir, fashioned with four ileal loops, the W-pouch, which assumed an almost spherical shape and seemed to offer a better evacuating function than J-pouch even if technically more difficult to fashion

A study from the St. Mark's Hospital (Nicholls & Pezim, 1985) comparing W-, S- and Jpouch for frequency of evacuations reported an inverse correlation between frequency and maximum volume of the pouch: reservoir capacity is thus one of the main factors affecting defecation frequency and volume seems to be more relevant than shape. A sufficiently capable J-pouch – fashioned with two loops of approximately 20 cm each – could hence have

In a prospective randomized trial Selvaggi et al.(Selvaggi et al., 2000) found that patients with J-pouch had an higher number of defecations than W-pouch in the short term; it should be noted, however, that after this initial difference J-pouch allows a number of evacuations

In the description of their original technique Parks and Nicholls (Parks & Nicholls, 1978) described mucosectomy of the rectal stump toward the *linea pettinata* and ileopouch-anal

to the anal canal after mucosectomy of the rectal stump toward the *linea pettinata*.

in 45% of patients (Skarsgard et al., 1989; Druss et al., 1968).

sphincters represent absolute contraindications to colectomy with IRA.

function.

(Figure 2).

results similar to those of W- or S-pouch.

similar to that of W-pouch in the long term.

#### **2.6 Extraintestinal manifestations**

About 30% of UC patients have at least one extraintestinal manifestation contributing to opt for surgery. Some manifestations, such as those involving skin, distal joints, eyes, or hematologic and vascular ones, can improve after surgery, whereas some other like pyoderma gangrenosum, ankylosing spondilytis, and rheumatoid arthritis do not seem to be modified by surgical intervention.

#### **2.7 Prevention of neoplastic degeneration**

Factors predisposing to colorectal cancer in UC patients consist of pancolitis, duration of disease, active disease and its severity. Early UC onset is another independent risk factor.

Beside these factors, dysplasia represents the precancerous lesion from which colorectal cancer subsequently arise (Morson, 1962; Morson & Pang, 1967).

In fact, > 70% of patients with colorectal cancer on UC have dysplasia on colorectal mucosa (Taylor et al., 1992; Connell et al., 1994). Severe dysplasia is reported to develop colorectal cancer in 45% of cases, whereas there are too few data in literature to do a similar valuation for mild-moderate dysplasia (Collins et al., 1987; Bernestein et al.,1994).

Furthermore, the risk of colorectal cancer is due to the evidence that high grade dysplasia represents a marker of cancer in another colon site in 45% of patients (Provenzale et al.,1995).

A review analyzing 116 studies pointed out that the global risk for colorectal cancer in UC patients is 8% after 20 years of disease, increasing gradually during years (Table 3), with a global rate of 3.7% (Van Heerden et al., 1980).


Table 3. Risk of colorectal cancer and duration of disease

This risk is approximately 8 times higher than normal population, increasing to 20 times if pancolitis is present; it is 4 times higher in case of left colitis (Gyde et al., 1988).

For these reasons, some Authors advocated prophylactic colectomy in UC patients affected from more than 10 years, but this approach is still matter of debate (Provenzale et al.,1995).

#### **3. Surgical options**

The possible surgical strategies can be schematized in three types of intervention:


In 1997 Little and Parks (Little & Parks, 1977) proposed proctocolectomy with definitive ileostomy for the treatment of UC. This intervention surely gives the advantage of being curative, ensuring complete disease removal with a single intervention. Moreover such intervention, if intersphincteric proctectomy is performed and perianal skin closed, allows to reduce morbidity of rectal excision with its major complications, such as urinary and sexual dysfunctions and leakage due to the presence of anal canal. Definitive ileostomy with lost anorectal function is the principal drawback of this procedure. Ileostomy, in fact, determines an important handicap for the patient who feels permanently ill, and can cause

About 30% of UC patients have at least one extraintestinal manifestation contributing to opt for surgery. Some manifestations, such as those involving skin, distal joints, eyes, or hematologic and vascular ones, can improve after surgery, whereas some other like pyoderma gangrenosum, ankylosing spondilytis, and rheumatoid arthritis do not seem to

Factors predisposing to colorectal cancer in UC patients consist of pancolitis, duration of disease, active disease and its severity. Early UC onset is another independent risk factor. Beside these factors, dysplasia represents the precancerous lesion from which colorectal

In fact, > 70% of patients with colorectal cancer on UC have dysplasia on colorectal mucosa (Taylor et al., 1992; Connell et al., 1994). Severe dysplasia is reported to develop colorectal cancer in 45% of cases, whereas there are too few data in literature to do a similar valuation

Furthermore, the risk of colorectal cancer is due to the evidence that high grade dysplasia represents a marker of cancer in another colon site in 45% of patients (Provenzale et al.,1995). A review analyzing 116 studies pointed out that the global risk for colorectal cancer in UC patients is 8% after 20 years of disease, increasing gradually during years (Table 3), with a

Risk (%) Duration of disease (ys)

This risk is approximately 8 times higher than normal population, increasing to 20 times if

For these reasons, some Authors advocated prophylactic colectomy in UC patients affected from more than 10 years, but this approach is still matter of debate (Provenzale et al.,1995).

In 1997 Little and Parks (Little & Parks, 1977) proposed proctocolectomy with definitive ileostomy for the treatment of UC. This intervention surely gives the advantage of being curative, ensuring complete disease removal with a single intervention. Moreover such intervention, if intersphincteric proctectomy is performed and perianal skin closed, allows to reduce morbidity of rectal excision with its major complications, such as urinary and sexual dysfunctions and leakage due to the presence of anal canal. Definitive ileostomy with lost anorectal function is the principal drawback of this procedure. Ileostomy, in fact, determines an important handicap for the patient who feels permanently ill, and can cause

pancolitis is present; it is 4 times higher in case of left colitis (Gyde et al., 1988).

The possible surgical strategies can be schematized in three types of intervention:

10 20 30

**2.6 Extraintestinal manifestations** 

be modified by surgical intervention.

**2.7 Prevention of neoplastic degeneration** 

global rate of 3.7% (Van Heerden et al., 1980).

**3. Surgical options** 

cancer subsequently arise (Morson, 1962; Morson & Pang, 1967).

2 8 18

Table 3. Risk of colorectal cancer and duration of disease


for mild-moderate dysplasia (Collins et al., 1987; Bernestein et al.,1994).

alteration of body image leading to depression, isolation and impairment of social function in 45% of patients (Skarsgard et al., 1989; Druss et al., 1968).

Total colectomy with ileo-rectal anastomosis proposed by Devine (Devine, 1943) and Corbett (Corbett, 1952) seems to avoid this problem because it does not require ileostomy, restoring intestinal continuity with ileo-rectal anastomosis. Furthermore, this intervention is able to ensure good results with low incidence of mortality – especially if performed in elective settings – and low incidence of anastomotic leakage and pelvic sepsis (Jones et al., 1977). The main advantage is that the preservation of anorectal function is possible avoiding genito-urinary dysfunctions due to proctectomy, with 4/5 evacuation/day. However, in a study from the Mayo Clinic involving 63 patients with IRA only 55% of patients was satisfied with function in the long term (Farnell & Adson, 1985). Moreover, about 1/3 of patients still need enemas with corticosteroids or sulfasalazine (Khubchandani et al., 1978).

Colectomy with IRA does not remove the entire diseased organ, and the preservation of the rectum rises the risk of late carcinogenesis or of severe proctitis, which can affect long term results of the intervention and require subsequent proctectomy in 5-30% of patients (Parc et al., 1989). The presence of carcinoma, severe rectal disease and incompetence of the sphincters represent absolute contraindications to colectomy with IRA.

For these reasons, researchers felt the need of perform interventions that could not only be curative and radical, but able to preserve sphincters and, therefore, an acceptable anal function.

To fulfill these aims, Parks and Nicholls (Parks & Nicholls, 1978) first described RP with ileal pouch in 1978, consisting of total colectomy, proximal proctectomy, mucosectomy of the distal rectum and ileopouch-anal anastomosis. The intervention which they proposed implied fashioning of an S-shaped ileal reservoir with three folded ileal loops anastomized to the anal canal after mucosectomy of the rectal stump toward the *linea pettinata*.

Subsequently Utsonomiya (Utsonomiya et al., 1980) perfectioned this reservoir, as it had important emptying problems due to the often excessive length of the efferent limb (about 5 cm), responsible for failure of spontaneous evacuation. In 1980 the Author proposed a Jshaped reservoir fashioned with two loops of small bowel. J-pouch, easy to perform even with mechanical staplers, avoided problems of S-pouch but it still comported an high number of evacuations, particularly during the first years after ileostomy reversal, hence in 1984 Nicholls (Nicholls & Pezim, 1984) suggested a new type of reservoir, fashioned with four ileal loops, the W-pouch, which assumed an almost spherical shape and seemed to offer a better evacuating function than J-pouch even if technically more difficult to fashion (Figure 2).

A study from the St. Mark's Hospital (Nicholls & Pezim, 1985) comparing W-, S- and Jpouch for frequency of evacuations reported an inverse correlation between frequency and maximum volume of the pouch: reservoir capacity is thus one of the main factors affecting defecation frequency and volume seems to be more relevant than shape. A sufficiently capable J-pouch – fashioned with two loops of approximately 20 cm each – could hence have results similar to those of W- or S-pouch.

In a prospective randomized trial Selvaggi et al.(Selvaggi et al., 2000) found that patients with J-pouch had an higher number of defecations than W-pouch in the short term; it should be noted, however, that after this initial difference J-pouch allows a number of evacuations similar to that of W-pouch in the long term.

In the description of their original technique Parks and Nicholls (Parks & Nicholls, 1978) described mucosectomy of the rectal stump toward the *linea pettinata* and ileopouch-anal

Surgical Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis 9

of rectum effectuated by the stapler poses the anastomosis just above the superior margin of

As now, J- and W-pouch are the most used reservoirs, while S-pouch is not commonly performed due to the need of catheterization to facilitate evacuation in about 50% of

Thus, RP represented a revolution in surgical treatment of UC, becoming in few years the intervention of choice in selected centers, as it allows a complete disease removal preserving intestinal continuity and the anus in its natural site, therefore ensuring good fecal continence and acceptable number of evacuation during one day. Moreover the simplification of the original procedure due to mechanical staplers to perform ileo-anal anastomosis significantly

The number of interventions necessary to perform RP can vary. In case of emergency settings, when patients usually are in severe general conditions, it is preferable to perform a total colectomy, postposing proctectomy and pouch construction. On the other hand, immunomodulators and, more recently, biologics demonstrated their effectiveness in controlling acute UC attack, allowing RP in elective settings when there is no absolute

RP is nowadays the intervention of choice for surgical treatment of UC in so much that Dozois, already in 1988, stated that results with RP were so good that it should be preferred

Reliability of this intervention induced to extend surgical indication not only for patient

First, diagnosis of UC must be histologically confirmed; if there is suspicion of Crohn's disease RP should be avoided, as Crohn's brings about a risk of perineal complications of about 50% with a 20-40% rate of pouch defunctioning/removal (Parker & Nicholls, 1991;

Moreover a manometric examination of the sphincters must be carried out, because patients

Elderly represents a relative contraindication to RP: this is not due to patients' general health status, but to the more frequent incidence of fecal incontinence in the older

Patients already undergone anal surgery before RP have similar functional results than who

RP is more difficult in patient with a small pelvis and in thin patients, as it could be difficult to get the pouch reach the anus without tension, even when all the techniques of mesenteric lengthening are performed. Obesity has represented another relative contraindication to RP,

Cancer of the colon or of the proximal rectum does not represent a contraindication to RP as it can be completely excised. When a locally invasive cancer with metastasis to regional nodes is diagnosed, total colectomy should be performed and adjuvant therapy should be given before proctectomy and pouch construction; in patients with metastatic disease RP is

with intractable UC but also for those in acceptable general conditions.

with poor sphincter function do not fit ileopouch-anal anastomosis.

population. In fact, anal contraction diminishes in over 70-year-old patients.

but the intervention is nowadays performed routinely also in obese patients.

contraindicated and colectomy with IRA should be preferred.

However, some factors should be considered before proposing to patients a RP.

the anal canal, with no need of mucosectomy.

contributed to the diffusion of the technique.

patients.

indication to surgery.

**4. Patients selection** 

in the majority of patients.

Hyman et al., 1991).

did not (Selvaggi et al., 2010a).

anastomosis at that level. This was regarded as a fundamental time of the procedure, allowing complete removal of the diseased tissue and definitive disease healing.

Fig. 2. Pouch configurations

Nowadays most Authors agree that preserving the rectum is useless, so it is sectioned at the level of anorectal junction. The preparation of the rectum toward anorectal junction is usually intramesorectal, which rises the risk of bleeding but also reduces the risk of nerve lesions. However mesorectal excision is mandatory in case of either severe dysplasia or cancer.

After pouch construction, ileopouch-anal anastomosis can be either manual or stapled. When mucosectomy is performed, it is necessary to fashion manual ileoanal anastomosis intra-anally by suturing the pouch to the anus with some stiches between it and the *linea dentata*. Mechanical anastomosis is performed with a circular stapled inserted trans-anally.

Mucosectomy guarantees complete eradication of the disease, avoiding both bleeding from persistent inflammation (Keighley et al.,1991), found in about 23% of cases (44%), and incidence of mucosal dysplasia and cancer development, but it is not routinely performed for several reasons: it is quite difficult to perform; it requires longer operatory times; it brings about risks of sphincter lesions both direct and due to anal divaricator; it can be difficult to get the apex of the pouch to the perineal plane to effectuate the anastomosis without tension; there is the risk of pelvic septic complications. Moreover, mucosectomy also removes anal transitional zone (AZT) which has sensitive function and contributes to perfect continence.

To avoid such problems a technique was proposed, consisting of section of the rectum about 2 cm above the *linea dentata* and stapled pouch-anal anastomosis. Further resection of 1 cm

anastomosis at that level. This was regarded as a fundamental time of the procedure,

Nowadays most Authors agree that preserving the rectum is useless, so it is sectioned at the level of anorectal junction. The preparation of the rectum toward anorectal junction is usually intramesorectal, which rises the risk of bleeding but also reduces the risk of nerve lesions. However mesorectal excision is mandatory in case of either severe dysplasia or

After pouch construction, ileopouch-anal anastomosis can be either manual or stapled. When mucosectomy is performed, it is necessary to fashion manual ileoanal anastomosis intra-anally by suturing the pouch to the anus with some stiches between it and the *linea dentata*. Mechanical anastomosis is performed with a circular stapled inserted

Mucosectomy guarantees complete eradication of the disease, avoiding both bleeding from persistent inflammation (Keighley et al.,1991), found in about 23% of cases (44%), and incidence of mucosal dysplasia and cancer development, but it is not routinely performed for several reasons: it is quite difficult to perform; it requires longer operatory times; it brings about risks of sphincter lesions both direct and due to anal divaricator; it can be difficult to get the apex of the pouch to the perineal plane to effectuate the anastomosis without tension; there is the risk of pelvic septic complications. Moreover, mucosectomy also removes anal transitional zone (AZT) which has sensitive function and contributes to

To avoid such problems a technique was proposed, consisting of section of the rectum about 2 cm above the *linea dentata* and stapled pouch-anal anastomosis. Further resection of 1 cm

allowing complete removal of the diseased tissue and definitive disease healing.

Fig. 2. Pouch configurations

cancer.

trans-anally.

perfect continence.

of rectum effectuated by the stapler poses the anastomosis just above the superior margin of the anal canal, with no need of mucosectomy.

As now, J- and W-pouch are the most used reservoirs, while S-pouch is not commonly performed due to the need of catheterization to facilitate evacuation in about 50% of patients.

Thus, RP represented a revolution in surgical treatment of UC, becoming in few years the intervention of choice in selected centers, as it allows a complete disease removal preserving intestinal continuity and the anus in its natural site, therefore ensuring good fecal continence and acceptable number of evacuation during one day. Moreover the simplification of the original procedure due to mechanical staplers to perform ileo-anal anastomosis significantly contributed to the diffusion of the technique.

The number of interventions necessary to perform RP can vary. In case of emergency settings, when patients usually are in severe general conditions, it is preferable to perform a total colectomy, postposing proctectomy and pouch construction. On the other hand, immunomodulators and, more recently, biologics demonstrated their effectiveness in controlling acute UC attack, allowing RP in elective settings when there is no absolute indication to surgery.

#### **4. Patients selection**

RP is nowadays the intervention of choice for surgical treatment of UC in so much that Dozois, already in 1988, stated that results with RP were so good that it should be preferred in the majority of patients.

Reliability of this intervention induced to extend surgical indication not only for patient with intractable UC but also for those in acceptable general conditions.

However, some factors should be considered before proposing to patients a RP.

First, diagnosis of UC must be histologically confirmed; if there is suspicion of Crohn's disease RP should be avoided, as Crohn's brings about a risk of perineal complications of about 50% with a 20-40% rate of pouch defunctioning/removal (Parker & Nicholls, 1991; Hyman et al., 1991).

Moreover a manometric examination of the sphincters must be carried out, because patients with poor sphincter function do not fit ileopouch-anal anastomosis.

Elderly represents a relative contraindication to RP: this is not due to patients' general health status, but to the more frequent incidence of fecal incontinence in the older population. In fact, anal contraction diminishes in over 70-year-old patients.

Patients already undergone anal surgery before RP have similar functional results than who did not (Selvaggi et al., 2010a).

RP is more difficult in patient with a small pelvis and in thin patients, as it could be difficult to get the pouch reach the anus without tension, even when all the techniques of mesenteric lengthening are performed. Obesity has represented another relative contraindication to RP, but the intervention is nowadays performed routinely also in obese patients.

Cancer of the colon or of the proximal rectum does not represent a contraindication to RP as it can be completely excised. When a locally invasive cancer with metastasis to regional nodes is diagnosed, total colectomy should be performed and adjuvant therapy should be given before proctectomy and pouch construction; in patients with metastatic disease RP is contraindicated and colectomy with IRA should be preferred.

Surgical Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis 11

An increase in bowel frequency or a *malfunctioning* pouch are not enough to define

We have recently demonstrated that COX-2 and VEGF are overexpressed in ileal pouch

Reasons determining a poor pouch function are various and, often, due to surgeon's

They are often due to fashioning of pouch either too small, unable to fulfill reservoir

Causes determining pouch dysfunction can be classified on the basis of anatomic site which

Aim of surgical treatment of UC is the complete removal of the disease. Indications to surgery in election are not, as now, better defined than they were in the past, because of both better knowledge of clinical history and more accurate prevention of an eventual neoplastic transformation obtained with pancolonoscopy with multiple bioptic sampling. On the other hand, nowadays more patients are operated on because recent procedures allow sphincters preservation and particularly to interposition of an ileal pouch that can offer a satisficing anal function in > 90% of patients with a good quality of life. This approach could be considered more aggressive, but it has surely determined a decrease in rate of patients needing surgery in emergency settings, consequently leading to lower incidence of perioperatory mortality and morbidity. However some aspects still need to be analyzed in order to offer better functional results, with lower complication rates, such as ideal pouch shape, type of pouch-anal anastomosis, the need for mucosectomy, the role of ileostomy, and, of course, a better understanding of physio-pathological mechanisms determining pouchitis is needed, even if such complication does not seem to affect

Bartram, C.I. (1994) Plain abdominal x-ray in acute colitis. *Procededings of the Royal Society of* 

Bernstein, C.N.; Shanahan, F. & Weinstein, W.M. (1994) Are we telling patients the truth about surveillance colonoscopy in ulcerative colitis? *Lancet* 343: 71-74

Stenosis of pouch-anal anastomosis Pouch angulation Pouch torsion Long rectal stump Pouch prolapse Anal sphincters spasms Paradox contraction of puborectalis m.

Proximal ileum Pouch Outlet

Crohn's disease Indetermined colitis Shape Volume Peri-pouch fibrosis

mucosa, potentially playing a role in development of pouchitis (Romano et al., 2007).

pouchitis, but this is a common mistake.

function, or too big, unable to empty completely.

they originate from (Table 4) (Selvaggi et al., 2002).

Table 4. Causes of dysfunction and anatomic site

significantly overall functional results.

*Medicine* 69: 617-618

**5.6 Malfunctioning pouch** 

Chronic obstruction Gut infections Alimentation Small bowel motility

**6. Conclusions** 

**7. References** 

experience.

#### **5. Complications**

Intraoperative mortality is reported to be lower than 1%, while global morbidity ranges between 13 and 54% after RP (Hosie et al., 1992; Metcalf et al., 1988; Nicholls & Pezim, 1984; Nicholls, 1993). Complications can occur early, after ileostomy closure or late.

#### **5.1 Small bowel occlusion**

It is an early complication occurring in 15% of patients before ileostomy closure. About 1/3 of these patients require surgical intervention. However, this rate is similar to that of other surgical interventions for UC. The rate of small bowel occlusion can reach 20-25% after ileostomy closure, so it is significantly higher than that after colectomy with terminal ileostomy (Marcello, 1993).

#### **5.2 Pelvic sepsis**

Manifestations of pelvic sepsis include abscess, flegmon and fistula. In the past this complication was reported to occur in 20-30% of patients, while nowadays its incidence dramatically reduced to 5-7% (Selvaggi et al., 2010b; Williams & Johnstone, 1985). Such a difference is probably due to both growing surgical experience and to complete rectal removal avoiding mucosectomy of a long rectal stump (Lohmuller et al., 1990). Some Authors reported that pelvic sepsis is a treating condition because, after its resolution, when the pouch is not excised, it determines pelvic fibrosis potentially affecting pouch compliance and, consequently, impair function.

#### **5.3 Stenosis of ileopouch-anal anastomosis**

Its incidence varies between 4 and 38%, being more frequent in case of stapled anastomosis. It is one of the most common causes of pouch malfunctioning due to the possibility of an outlet obstruction that can require several dilatations with Hegar dilators or, less frequently, redo-pouch (Nicholls, 1993).

#### **5.4 Genito-urinary dysfunctions**

They occur in approximately 11% of male and 12%of female (Nicholls, 1993). They are usually due to nerve lesions during rectal dissection and ligation of inferior mesenteric vessels and to post-surgical adhesions, that, in female gender, can cause infertility. However, pregnancy is possible after RP.

#### **5.5 Pouchitis**

It is a common complication of RP. Diagnosis consists of contemporaneous presence of abdominal pain, emission of liquid feces with blood, urgency, incontinence, general malaise, and fever. Pathological confirmation is required with histological evidence of the inflammation. When all these criteria are satisfied, it has an incidence of 10%.

The risk of developing pouchitis is higher during the first 6 months after intervention; cumulative risk at 4 years is 51%, but <10% of patients present with a severe pouchitis and only 1.3% will require pouch excision; in most cases (90%) pouchitis presents with sporadic episodes, easily managed with metronidazole and, sometimes, enemas with steroids or 5- ASA. In the rare eventuality of intractable pouchitis a temporary ileostomy or pouch removal can be necessary (Lohmuller et al., 1990; Patel et al.,1995).

Intraoperative mortality is reported to be lower than 1%, while global morbidity ranges between 13 and 54% after RP (Hosie et al., 1992; Metcalf et al., 1988; Nicholls & Pezim, 1984;

It is an early complication occurring in 15% of patients before ileostomy closure. About 1/3 of these patients require surgical intervention. However, this rate is similar to that of other surgical interventions for UC. The rate of small bowel occlusion can reach 20-25% after ileostomy closure, so it is significantly higher than that after colectomy with terminal

Manifestations of pelvic sepsis include abscess, flegmon and fistula. In the past this complication was reported to occur in 20-30% of patients, while nowadays its incidence dramatically reduced to 5-7% (Selvaggi et al., 2010b; Williams & Johnstone, 1985). Such a difference is probably due to both growing surgical experience and to complete rectal removal avoiding mucosectomy of a long rectal stump (Lohmuller et al., 1990). Some Authors reported that pelvic sepsis is a treating condition because, after its resolution, when the pouch is not excised, it determines pelvic fibrosis potentially affecting pouch compliance

Its incidence varies between 4 and 38%, being more frequent in case of stapled anastomosis. It is one of the most common causes of pouch malfunctioning due to the possibility of an outlet obstruction that can require several dilatations with Hegar dilators or, less frequently,

They occur in approximately 11% of male and 12%of female (Nicholls, 1993). They are usually due to nerve lesions during rectal dissection and ligation of inferior mesenteric

It is a common complication of RP. Diagnosis consists of contemporaneous presence of abdominal pain, emission of liquid feces with blood, urgency, incontinence, general malaise, and fever. Pathological confirmation is required with histological evidence of the

The risk of developing pouchitis is higher during the first 6 months after intervention; cumulative risk at 4 years is 51%, but <10% of patients present with a severe pouchitis and only 1.3% will require pouch excision; in most cases (90%) pouchitis presents with sporadic episodes, easily managed with metronidazole and, sometimes, enemas with steroids or 5- ASA. In the rare eventuality of intractable pouchitis a temporary ileostomy or pouch

vessels and to post-surgical adhesions, that, in female gender, can cause infertility.

inflammation. When all these criteria are satisfied, it has an incidence of 10%.

removal can be necessary (Lohmuller et al., 1990; Patel et al.,1995).

Nicholls, 1993). Complications can occur early, after ileostomy closure or late.

**5. Complications** 

**5.1 Small bowel occlusion** 

ileostomy (Marcello, 1993).

and, consequently, impair function.

redo-pouch (Nicholls, 1993).

**5.5 Pouchitis** 

**5.4 Genito-urinary dysfunctions** 

However, pregnancy is possible after RP.

**5.3 Stenosis of ileopouch-anal anastomosis** 

**5.2 Pelvic sepsis** 

An increase in bowel frequency or a *malfunctioning* pouch are not enough to define pouchitis, but this is a common mistake.

We have recently demonstrated that COX-2 and VEGF are overexpressed in ileal pouch mucosa, potentially playing a role in development of pouchitis (Romano et al., 2007).

#### **5.6 Malfunctioning pouch**

Reasons determining a poor pouch function are various and, often, due to surgeon's experience.

They are often due to fashioning of pouch either too small, unable to fulfill reservoir function, or too big, unable to empty completely.

Causes determining pouch dysfunction can be classified on the basis of anatomic site which they originate from (Table 4) (Selvaggi et al., 2002).


Table 4. Causes of dysfunction and anatomic site

#### **6. Conclusions**

Aim of surgical treatment of UC is the complete removal of the disease. Indications to surgery in election are not, as now, better defined than they were in the past, because of both better knowledge of clinical history and more accurate prevention of an eventual neoplastic transformation obtained with pancolonoscopy with multiple bioptic sampling. On the other hand, nowadays more patients are operated on because recent procedures allow sphincters preservation and particularly to interposition of an ileal pouch that can offer a satisficing anal function in > 90% of patients with a good quality of life. This approach could be considered more aggressive, but it has surely determined a decrease in rate of patients needing surgery in emergency settings, consequently leading to lower incidence of perioperatory mortality and morbidity. However some aspects still need to be analyzed in order to offer better functional results, with lower complication rates, such as ideal pouch shape, type of pouch-anal anastomosis, the need for mucosectomy, the role of ileostomy, and, of course, a better understanding of physio-pathological mechanisms determining pouchitis is needed, even if such complication does not seem to affect significantly overall functional results.

#### **7. References**

Bartram, C.I. (1994) Plain abdominal x-ray in acute colitis. *Procededings of the Royal Society of Medicine* 69: 617-618

Bernstein, C.N.; Shanahan, F. & Weinstein, W.M. (1994) Are we telling patients the truth about surveillance colonoscopy in ulcerative colitis? *Lancet* 343: 71-74

Surgical Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis 13

Little, J.C. & Parks, A.G. (1977) Intersphincteric excision of the rectum. *Br J Surg* 64: 413-416 Lohmuller, J.L.; Pemberton, J.H. & Dozois P.R. (1990) Pouchitis and extraintestinal

Marcello, P.W. (1993) Long-term results of the ileo-anal pouch procedure. *Arch Surg.* 128:

Metcalf, A.M.; Dozois, R.R. & Beart, R.W. (1988) Temporary ileostomy for pouch anal anastomosis . function and complication. *Dis Colon Rectum.* 29: 300-303 Mitchell, A.; Guyatt, G. & Singer, J. (1988) Quality of life in patients with inflammatory

Morson, B.C. (1962) Some peculiarities in the histology of intestinal polyps. *Dis Colon Rectum* 

Morson, B.C. & Pang, L.S.C. (1967) Rectal biopsy as aid to cancer control in ulcerative colitis.

Nicholls, R.J. (1993) Controversies and pratical problem solving. In *: Restorative* 

Nicholls, R.J. & Pezim, M.E. (1984) Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. *Ann Surg* 199: 383-388 Nicholls, R.J. & Pezim, M.E. (1985) Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir for

Parc, R.; Legrand, M. & Frileux, P. (1989) Comparative clinical results of ileal pouch-anal

Parker, M.C. & Nicholls, R.J. (1991) Restorative proctocolectomy in patients after previous

Parks, A.G. & Nicholls, R.J. (1978) Proctocolectomy without ileostomy for ulcerative colitis.

Patel, R.Y.; Barin, I.; Young, D. & Keighley, M.R.B. (1995) Cytokine production in pouchitis

Pemberton, J.H.; Kelly, K.A.; Beart, R.W. Jr.; Dozois, R.R.; Wolff, B.G. & Ilstrup, D.M. (1987)

Pemberton, J.H. ; Kelly, K. ; Beart R.W. ; Dozois, R.R. ; Wolf, B.G. & Ilstrupp D.M. (1988) Ileal pouch anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. *Ann Surg.* 207 : 504 Provenzale, D.; Kowdley, K.V.; Arora, S. & Wong, J.B. (1995) Prophylactic colectomy or

Richie, J. (1974) Results of surgery for inflammatory bowel disease: a furter study of one

Romano, M.; Cuomo, A. ; Tuccillo, C.; Salerno, R.; Rocco, A.; Staibano, S.; Mascolo, M.;

Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. Long term results. *Ann* 

surveillance for chronic ulcerative colitis? A decision analysis. *Gastroenterology* 109:

Sciaudone, G.; Mucherino, C.; Giuliani, A.; Riegler, G.; Nardone, G.; Del Vecchio Blanco, C. & Selvaggi, F. (2007) Vascular endothelial growth factor and cyclooxygenase-2 are overexpressed in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. *Dis Colon* 

is similar to that in ulcerative colitis. *Dis Colon Rectum.* 38: 831-837

*Proctocolectomy*. Nicholls RJ, Bartolo DCC, Mortensen RJ. Oxford. Blackwell

ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: a comparative of three

anastomosis and ileal ileorectal anastomosis in ulcerative colitis.

*Ann Surg.* 21: 622-629

bowel disease. *J Clin Gastroenterol* 10: 306-310

reservoir designs. *Br J Surg* 72: 470-474

intestinal or anal surgery. *Dis Colon Rectum* 35: 681

*Hepatogastroenterology* 36: 235-239

hospital region. *Br J Surg* 1:264-268

500-504

5: 337

*Gut* 8: 423

Scientific Publ, 53-82

*Br Med J* 2: 85-88

*Surg* 206: 504-513

*Rectum* 50 (5):650-9

1188-1196

manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.


Binder, V.; Both, H.; Hansen, P.K.; Hendriksen, C.; Kreiner, S. & Trop-Pedersen, K. (1982)

Collins, R.H. Jr; Feldman, M. & Fordtran, J.S. (1987) Colon cancer, dysplasia, and

Connell, W.R. ; Talbot, I.C. ; Harpaz, N. ; Britto, N. ; Wilkinson, K.H. ; Kamm, M.A. &

Corbett, R.S. (1952) Recent advances in the surgical treatment of chronic ulcerative colitis.

Devine, H. (1943) A method of colectomy for desperate cases of ulcerative colitis. *Surg* 

Druss, R.G.; O'Connor, J.F.; Prudden, J.F. & Stern, O. (1968) Psychologic response to

Edwards, F.C. & Truelove, S.C. (1963) The course and prognosis of ulcerative colitis : Parts I

Farnell, M.B. & Adson, M.A. (1985) Ileorectostomy: current results: the Mayo Clinic

Gyde, S.N.; Prior, P.; Allan, R.N.; Stevens, A.; Jewell, D.P.; Truelove, S.C.; Lofberg, R.;

Hosie, H.B.; Grobler, S.P. & Keighley, M.R.B. (1992) Temporary loop ileostomy following

Hyman, N.H.; Fazio, V.W. & Lavery, I.C. (1991) Consequence of ileal pouch anal

Jewell, D.P. (1987) Ulcerative colitis.: indication for surgery. In: surgery of inflammatory bowel disorders. *Lee ECG, Ed. Edinburgh. Churchill Livingstone*, 33-38 Jones, P.F.; Munro, A. & Even, S.W.B. (1977) Colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis for colitis: report on a personal series with a critical review. *Br J Surg* 64: 615-623 Keighely, M.R.B.; Yoshioka, K. & Kmniot, W.A. (1991) Prospective randomized trial

Khubchandani, I.T.; Turinvei, H.D.; Sheets, J.A.; Stasik, J.J. & Kleckner, F.S. (1978) Ileorectal anastomosis for ulcerative and Crohn's colitis. *Am J Surg* 135: 751-756 Kirsner, J.B. & Shorter, R.G. (1982) Recent developments in "non specific" inflammatory

Kirsner, J.B. & Shorter, R.G. (1982) Recent developments in "non specific" inflammatory

Lavery, I.C.; Sirimarco, M.T.; Ziu, Y. & Fazio, V.W. Anal canal inflammation after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. The need for treatment. *Dis Colon Rectum* 38:803-806 Leijonmarck, C.E.; Persson, P.G. & Hellers, G. (1990) Factors affecting colectomy rate in

Lennard-Jones, J.E.; Ritchie, J.K.; Hilder, W. & Spicer, C.C. (1975) Assessment of severity in

Experience.. In: *Dozois RR (ed): Alternatives to Conventional Ileostomy. Year Book* 

Brostrom, O. & Hellers, G (1988) Colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: a cohort

comparing anal function after hand sewn ileoanal anastomosis with mucosectomy versus stapled ileoanal anastomosis without mucosectomy in restorative

of Copenaghen 1962-1978. *Gastroenterology.* 83:563-568

carcinoma complicating ulcerative colitis. *Gut* 35: 1419-1423

and II : short-term and long-term prognosis*. Gut* 4:299-315

study of primary referrals from three centres. *Gut* 29: 206-217

anastomosis for Crohn's colitis. *Dis Colon Rectum.* 34 :653

restorative proctocolectomy. *Br J Surg.* 79: 33-34

1654-1658

*Ann R Coll Surg Engl.* 10: 21-32

colectomy. *Arc Gen Psychiatry* 18: 53-59

*Medical Publisher*, Chicago, 100-121

proctocolectomy. *Br J Surg.* 78:430-434

bowel disease, Part I. *N Engl J Med* 306: 775-785

bowel disease, Part II. *N Engl J Med* 306: 837-848

colitis. A preliminary study. *Gut* 579-84

ulcerative colitis: an epidemiological study. *Gut* 31: 329-333

*Gynecol Obstet* 76: 136-138

Incidence and prevalence of Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's disease in the country

surveillance in patients with ulcerative colitis. A critical review. *N Engl J Med* 316:

Lennard-Jones, J.E. (1994) Clinicopathological characteristics of colorectal


**2** 

*Japan* 

**Laparoscopic Surgery** 

Hiyroyuki Sasaki and Iwao Sasaki

**for Severe Ulcerative Colitis** 

Naoki Tanaka, Katsuyoshi Kudo, Shinobu Ohnuma,

*Department of Surgery, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine* 

Kazuhiro Watanabe, Hitoshi Ogawa, Chikashi Shibata, Koh Miura, Takeshi Naitoh, Masayuki Kakyou, Takanori Morikawa, Sho Haneda,

Ulcerative colitis is occasionally exacerbated by fulminant manifestation of colitis. Severe ulcerative colitis is usually defined based on Trulove and Witts' criteria (Table 1) (Truelove & Witts, 1955). The incidence of severe colitis in ulcerative colitis is 5 to 15 percent (Chen et al., 1998). If the patient is not improving despite intensive medical therapy, emergency colectomy is mandatory. In such a case, the patient is often malnourished and anemic, and has received high dose of steroids; therefore, the usual option in patients with severe ulcerative colitis is subtotal colectomy and ileostomy with preservation of the rectum (Gurland & Wexner, 2002). Restorative proctectomy can be done at a later time after the

Table 1. Definition of severe ulcerative colitis based on Trulove and Witts' criteria (Truelove & Witts, 1955). When criteria (1) and (2) are applied, either criterion (3) or (4) is applied, and

The earliest reports of the laparoscopic approach to ulcerative colitis in the elective setting are from the early 1990s (Peters, 1992; Wexner et al., 1992). These first results did not seem very promising, the laparoscopic technique appeared too difficult to apply, too timeconsuming, and comorbidity was high. The authors discouraged the use of laparoscopic approach for patients requiring total colectomy. However, with advances in technology and

four of the six criteria are applied, the ulcerative colitis is diagnosed as severe

patient has recovered fully and steroids have been withdrawn (Fig. 1).

**1. Introduction** 

(1) >6 stools/day (2) Bloody diarrhea (3) Fever ≥37.5°C

(4) Heart rate ≥90/ min (5) Hemoglobin ≤10g/dl

(6) Erythrocyte sedimentation rate ≥30mm/hr

