Rectal eversion: safe and effective way to achieve low transaction in minimally invasive Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery, short- and long-term outcomes

  • Jose Cataneo
  • Peter Mowschenson
  • Thomas E. Cataldo
  • Vitaliy Y. PoylinEmail author



Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis remains a gold standard in restoring continence in patient with ulcerative colitis. Achieving low transection can be challenging and may require mucosectomy with a hand-sewn anastomosis. Rectal eversion (RE) technique provides a safe and effective alternative for both open and minimally invasive approaches. The purpose of this study is to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent RE when compared to those who underwent conventional trans-abdominal transection.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective review performed at tertiary care center. Patients undergoing proctectomy and pouch surgery by either standard approach or with RE from November 2004 to January 2017 were evaluated. Demographics, post-operative complications, as well as 1- and 3-year functional outcomes were analyzed.


Total of 176 underwent proctocolectomy with creation of a J pouch and 88 (50%) had the RE technique utilized. The RE group had a higher rate of corticosteroid use at the time of surgery 59.1 versus 39.8% (p = 0.0156), but otherwise groups were statistically similar. 20 cases (26.1%) of RE group and 54 (61%) of conventional group cases were accomplished in minimally invasive fashion. There was no difference in the rates of 30- and 90-day complications. Functional outcomes data were available for up to 78.4% of patient with trans-abdominal approach and 64.7% in RE group. At 1 and 3 years after surgery, there was no difference in the number of bowel movements, fecal incontinence, or nocturnal bowel movements. The rates of returning to ileostomy or pouch revision were the same.


RE technique is safe and effective way to achieve a low transaction in J pouch surgery. The technique provides similar functional outcomes at 1 and 3 years after surgery and can be particularly useful in minimally invasive approaches.


Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis Rectal eversion Low pelvic transection 


Author contributions

VYP—Design, analysis, drafting, revising, final approval and agreement to be accountable, JC—Acquisition of data, analysis, drafting, revising, final approval and agreement to be accountable, PM—Design, revising, final approval and agreement to be accountable, TEC—Conception, drafting, revising, final approval and agreement to be accountable

Compliance with ethical standards


Jose Cataneo, Peter Mowschenson, Thomas Cataldo, and Vitaliy Poylin have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Scoglio D, Ali UA, Fichera A (2014) Surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis: ileorectal vs ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. World J Gastroenterol 20(37):13211–13218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nobel T, Khaitov S, Greenstein AJ (2016) Controversies in J pouch surgery for ulcerative colitis: a focus on handsewn versus stapled anastomosis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 22(9):2302–2309. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holder-Murray J, Marsicovetere P, Holubar SD (2015) Minimally invasive surgery for inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 21(6):1443–1458. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shrestha B (2016) Minimally invasive surgery for inflammatory bowel disease: current perspectives. World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther 7(2):214–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Poylin V, Mowschenson P, Nagle D, Cataldo T (2017) Rectal eversion technique. Dis Colon Rectum 60(12):1329–1331. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dignan RD, Kwa JA, Odom TA (1999) Stapler-facilitated rectal eversion. Dis Colon Rectum 42(11):1472–1474. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhuo C, Liang L, Ying M et al (2015) Laparoscopic low anterior resection and eversion technique combined with a nondog ear anastomosis for mid- and distal rectal neoplasms. Medicine (Baltimore). 94(50):e2285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Lacy FB, Keller DS, Martin-Perez B, Emile SH, Chand M, Spinelli A, Lacy AM (2019) The current state of the transanal approach to the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Surg Endosc 33(5):1368–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zaghiyan K, Warusavitarne J, Spinelli A, Chandrasinghe P, Di Candido F, Fleshner P (2018) Technical variations and feasibility of transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and inflammatory bowel disease unclassified across continents. Tech Coloproctol 22(11):867–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mege D, Hain E, Lakkis Z, Maggiori L, Prost À la Denise J, Panis Y (2018) Is trans-anal total mesorectal excision really safe and better than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with a perineal approach first in patients with low rectal cancer? A learning curve with case-matched study in 68 patients. Colorectal Dis 20(6):0143–0151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williamson MER, Lewis WG, Miller AS, Sagar PM, Holdsworth PJ, Johnston D (1995) Clinical and physiological evaluation of anorectal eversion during restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 82(10):1391–1394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miller AS, Lewis WG, Williamson MER, Sagar PM, Holdsworth PJ, Johnston D (1996) Does eversion of the anorectum during restorative proctocolectomy influence functional outcome? Dis Colon Rectum 39(5):489–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Harvard Medical SchoolBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA
  3. 3.Northwestern Medicine Digestive Health Center Arkes PavilionChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations