A systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcome of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with ulcerative colitis versus patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.

BACKGROUND

Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is commonly used to restore gastrointestinal continuity after surgical treatment of mucosal ulcerative colitis (MUC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). The aim of the present systematic review was to compare the outcomes of patients with MUC and patients with FAP who underwent IPAA.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic review was performed. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through December 2021. Cohort and randomized studies were eligible for inclusion if they directly compared patients with MUC and FAP who underwent IPAA. The main outcome measures were pouch failure, complications, and need for pouch excision or revision. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias across the studies. A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies (9200 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Seven thousand nine hundred fifty (86.4%) had MUC and 1250 (13.6%) had FAP. The median age of patients was 33.1 years. The male to female ratio was 1.4:1. MUC had higher odds of pouchitis (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.8-5.4, p < 0.001), stricture (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.25-2.65, p = 0.002), fistula (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.18-2.54, p = 0.004), and total complications (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.3-2.77, p < 0.001) as compared to FAP. Both groups had similar odds of pelvic sepsis, leakage, pouch failure, excision, revision, and fecal incontinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients with MUC undergoing IPAA may be at a higher risk of developing complications, particularly pouchitis, stricture, and fistula; the ultimate and functional outcome of the pouch is similar to patients with FAP. Pouch failure, excision and revision were similar in the two groups.