66.10 Does path to Ileo-pouch anal anastomoses in the treatment of pediatric Ulcerativc colitis matter?

N. Bismar1, A. S. Patel1,2, D. Schindel1,2  2Children’s Medical Center,Pediatric Surgery,Dallas, Tx, USA 1University Of Texas Southwestern Medical Center,Pediatric Surgery,Dallas, TX, USA

Introduction:
To compare the outcomes of pediatric medically-refractory ulcerative colitis treated by a traditional (TIPAA) surgical approach (1st stage: laparoscopic proctocolectomy/ileo pouch-anal anastomosis with a protective loop ileostomy; 2nd stage:  stoma closure) versus a nontraditional (NIPAA) approach (1st stage: laparoscopic colectomy/ileostomy; 2nd stage:  completion proctectomy/ileo-pouch anal anastomosis without a stoma).  

Methods:

After IRB approval, a review of patients who underwent an ileo-pouch anal anastomosis, cared for at a children’s hospital from 2002-2017 was performed. Patient demographics, diagnosis at time of surgery, type of surgery (TIPAA vs NIPAA), time to full diet, level of continence, use of anti-diarrhea medications, and complications were recorded. A statistical analysis was performed using Graphpad® San Diego, CA. 

Results:

Forty-one children were identified (NIPAA; n=14; TIPAA; n=27). Following re-establishing bowel continuity, there were no significant differences in time to appetite recovery, continence, or incidence of complications between the TIPAA and NIPAA groups. The number of anti-diarrhea medications prescribed was significantly higher in the group following a TIPAA versus the NIPAA (p=0.01).  Nine patients (22%) required dilatation of an ileoanal anastomotic stricture, three following NIPAA and six following TIPAA (p=NS).  In addition to strictures, the most common complications observed were pouchitis and small bowel obstruction. Thirteen patients (31.7%) were treated for pouchitis: four following a NIPAA  and nine in the TIPAA group (p=NS). Of the 41 patients there were 11 who required additional surgical interventions (lysis of adhesions; stoma revisions), two (18.2%) had received a NIPAA approach and nine (81.8%) had received a TIPAA.  Two children having TIPPA, because of chronic pain and failure to achieve full continence elected placement of a diverting ileostomy.  

Conclusions:

This study suggests that children with medically-refractory UC treated by either NIPAA or TIPAA have similar outcomes.  Minimal differences in overall outcome following either apporach are noted.  However, performing an ileo-pouch anastomosis as a second stage procedure without a stoma may be associated with reduced reliance on antidiarrhea medications once intestinal continuity is restored.