These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of morbidity and function after colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis or restorative proctocolectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis.
    Author: Madden MV, Neale KF, Nicholls RJ, Landgrebe JC, Chapman PD, Bussey HJ, Thomson JP.
    Journal: Br J Surg; 1991 Jul; 78(7):789-92. PubMed ID: 1651799.
    Abstract:
    Restorative proctocolectomy with an ileal reservoir (RPC) should prevent colorectal cancer in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Until this is confirmed its role compared with total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) will depend on the relative morbidity and postoperative bowel function after the two procedures. This was analysed in 99 patients (37 RPC, 62 IRA) operated on between 1977 and 1989. Morbidity was greater after RPC with subsequent ileostomy closure (median hospital stay, 24 versus 11 days; complications, 60 versus 21 per cent; reoperation, 29 versus 3 per cent; return to normal activity; 31 versus 14 weeks). There was little difference in bowel function; after IRA median frequency was 3/24 h and urgency (unable to wait 15 min) occurred in 50 per cent, compared with 4.5/24h and 17 per cent after RPC. Night evacuation occurred in 10 and 43 per cent respectively. IRA was performed in younger patients (median 19 versus 31 years) who had fewer bowel motions before operation (2 versus 5/24 h). The greater morbidity of RPC suggests that it should be restricted to patients at higher risk of developing later rectal cancer, including those unavailable for follow-up and those with large or confluent rectal polyps or with curable colon cancer at the initial colectomy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]