Case-Matched Comparison of Long-Term Functional and Quality of Life Outcomes Following Laparoscopic Versus Open Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis
Laparoscopic ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA) is associated with recovery benefits when compared with open IPAA. There is limited data on long-term quality of life and functional outcomes, which this study aimed to assess.
An IRB-approved, prospectively maintained database was queried to identify patients undergoing laparoscopic IPAA (L), case-matched with open IPAA (O) based on age ± 5 years, gender, body mass index (BMI) ± 5 kg/m2, diagnosis, date of surgery ± 3 years, stapled/handsewn anastomosis, omission of diverting loop ileostomy and length of follow-up ± 3 years. We assessed functional results, dietary, social, work, sexual restrictions and the Cleveland Clinic global quality of life score (CGQoL) at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 years postoperatively. Functional outcomes were assessed based on number of stools (day/night) and seepage protection use (day/night). Variables were evaluated with Kaplan–Meier survival curves, uni- and multivariable analyses.
Out of 4595 IPAAs, 529 patients underwent L, of whom 404 patients were well matched 1:1 to an equivalent number of O based on all criteria. Median follow-ups were 2 (0.5–17.8) versus 2.4 (0.5–22.2) years in L versus O, respectively (p = 0.18). L was associated with significantly decreased number of stools at night and less frequent pad usage at 1 year, both during the day and at night. Functional outcomes became similar during further follow-up. L was also associated with improved overall CGQoL, and energy scores at 1 year postoperatively, and decreased social restrictions for 1–2 years. There were no significant differences in quality of health, dietary, work or sexual restrictions. Laparoscopy was not associated with increased risk of pouch failure (p = 0.07) or significantly different causes of pouch failure when compared to O.
Laparoscopic and open IPAA are associated with equivalent long-term functional outcomes, quality of life and pouch survival rates. Laparoscopic technique is associated with temporary benefits lasting 1 or 2 years.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 5.Schiessling S, Leowardi C, Kienle P, Antolovic D, Knebel P, Bruckner T et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus conventional ileoanal pouch procedure in patients undergoing elective restorative proctocolectomy (LapConPouch Trial)-a randomized controlled trial. Langenbecks Arch Surg 398(6):807–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Polle SW, Dunker MS, Slors JF, Sprangers MA, Cuesta MA, Gouma DJ et al (2007) Body image, cosmesis, quality of life, and functional outcome of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy: long-term results of a randomized trial. Surg Endosc 21(8):1301–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Benlice C, Stocchi L, Costedio M, Gorgun E, Hull T, Kessler H et al (2015) Laparoscopic IPAA is not associated with decreased rates of incisional hernia and small-bowel obstruction when compared with open technique: long-term follow-up of a case-matched study. Dis Colon Rectum 58(3):314–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Baek SJ, Lightner AL, Boostrom SY, Mathis KL, Cima RR, Pemberton JH, Larson DW, Dozois EJ (2017) Functional outcomes following laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with chronic ulcerative colitis: long-term follow-up of a case-matched study. J Gastrointest Surg 21(8):1304–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar