Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Intest Res : Intestinal Research

IMPACT FACTOR

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Intest Res > Ahead-of print articles > Article
Original Article The prevalence of pouch fistulas in ulcerative colitis following restorative proctocolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Sheng Wei Lo1, Ishaan Dharia2, Danujan Sriranganathan3,orcid, Maia Kayal2orcid, Edward L. Barnes4orcid, Jonathan P. Segal5,6orcid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2024.00009
Published online: August 9, 2024

1Department of Gastroenterology, Northern Hospital, Epping, Australia

2Department of Gastroenterology, The Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA

3Department of Gastroenterology, The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK

4Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

5Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Australia

6Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

Correspondence to Danujan Sriranganathan, Department of Gastroenterology, The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, Whitechapel Road, London E1 1FR, UK. Tel: +44-20-7377-7000, E-mail: danujan.sriranganathan@nhs.net
• Received: January 17, 2024   • Revised: April 17, 2024   • Accepted: May 9, 2024

© 2024 Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 586 Views
  • 44 Download
  • Background/Aims
    One complication of restorative proctocolectomy with ileo-anal pouch anastomosis is fistula formation in the pouch. Fistulas can be associated with significant morbidity and pouch failure. We conducted a systematic review with meta- analysis to try and understand the prevalence of pouch fistulas in patients with ulcerative colitis following restorative proctocolectomy.
  • Methods
    The Embase, Embase Classic, and PubMed databases were searched between January 1979 and April 2022. Studies were included if there were cross-sectional, case-controlled, population-based or cohort studies reporting on prevalence of pouch fistulas in ulcerative colitis. Studies had to report the number of patients with pouch fistulas using either clinical, endoscopic, or radiological diagnosis in an adult population.
  • Results
    Thirty-three studies screened met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of developing at least 1 fistula was 0.05 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04–0.07). The pooled prevalence of pouch failure in patients with pouch fistula was found to be 0.24 (95% CI, 0.19–0.30). The pooled prevalence of developing a pouch fistula at 3 years, 5 years and more than 5 years was 0.04 (95% CI, 0.02–0.07), 0.05 (95% CI, 0.02–0.07), and 0.05 (95% CI, 0.02–0.10), respectively.
  • Conclusions
    This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to report the prevalence of pouch fistula. It also provides a pooled prevalence of pouch failure in these patients. These results can help to shape future guidelines, power future studies, and help counsel patients.
Restorative proctocolectomy with ileo-anal pouch anastomosis (IPAA) refers to the operation in where the patient’s own small bowel can be used as a reservoir to allow “natural defecation” without the need for a long-term ostomy following removal of a diseased large bowel. This has become a popular quality of life operation for those with ulcerative colitis (UC) who have not responded to medical therapy and in some patients with familial adenomatous polyposis [1]. Despite good functional outcomes, complications can occur with the pouch to include inflammatory, mechanical, psychological, and functional. One of these complications include fistulas in the pouch itself.
The cause of pouch fistulas is multifactorial to include ischemia, post-surgical dehiscence and Crohn’s disease (CD) of the pouch [2]. Whereas some of this may be unavoidable, counseling about the incidence of pouch fistulas remains an important part of the pre-surgical work up as pouch fistulas can have a significant impact on the quality of life of patients who have undergone restorative proctocolectomy. They can cause persistent discharge and foul odors, which can result in social stigma and embarrassment. Additionally, they can lead to skin irritation, infection, and difficulty with wound healing. Pouch fistulas most commonly occur between the pouch and vagina; pouch and bladder; pouch and anal anastomosis; and pouch and seminal vesicles [3].
The management of pouch fistulas can be challenging, and utilizes various surgical and non-surgical treatments. Surgical interventions include revision of the pouch and closure of the fistula, whereas non-surgical treatments include topical and systemic antibiotics, wound care, and fistula plugging. Failure of these treatments can result in removal or diversion of the pouch and is termed pouch failure [4].
The prevalence of pouch fistulas varies in the literature. We, therefore, conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to understand the prevalence of pouch fistulas following restorative proctocolectomy and pouch failure in those with pouch fistulas after colectomy for UC.
We searched Embase, Embase Classic, and PubMed from 1978 to April 2022 to identify all studies that reported the prevalence of pouch fistulas following restorative proctocolectomy in adults (≥ 90%) of all participants (≥ 18 years of age). We included studies that were population-based studies, case-controlled studies, cohort studies and cross-sectional surveys that reported the prevalence of pouch fistulas.
We included cross-sectional, case-controlled studies, population-based, and cohort studies reporting on prevalence of pouch fistulas in patients who had undergone restorative proctocolectomy for UC. Studies had to report the number of patients with pouch fistulas using either clinical, endoscopic or radiological diagnosis in an adult population.
We excluded those papers who reported exclusively patients with familial adenomatous polyposis or in those papers where it was not able to extract the patients reported exclusively for UC. To identify published abstracts, we hand searched conference proceedings from United European Gastroenterology, European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation, British Society of Gastroenterology, and Digestive Disease Week through April 2022.
We searched the medical literature using the terms in Supplementary Table 1 using both as medical subject headings (MeSH) and free-text terms. No language restrictions were applied. We hand searched references from eligible studies for any further studies to be included. Studies that appeared potentially eligible but did not have the required data we emailed the authors for clarification. The eligibility of studies was independently assessed by 2 authors (S.W.L. and I.D.) against the pre-agreed inclusion criteria. All disagreements went to a third reviewer for a consensus (D.S.).
We collected data on author, year, country, method to define presence of acute or chronic pouchitis; number of patients providing complete data; number of male or female patients; type of pouch, number of patients with active acute pouchitis; number of patients with chronic pouchitis, number of patients with CD of the pouch, number of patients with inflammatory pouch condition (pouchitis, cuffitis, and pre-pouch ileitis) number of patients with fistula, location of fistula, timing of fistula in relation to surgery for restorative proctocolectomy, median follow-up, method to diagnose fistula and outcomes following diagnosis of fistula. For papers that reported the management and outcomes of these fistulas we included these as a narrative analysis.
We compared prevalence of fistula according to type of pouch, sex, presence of pouchitis and disease activity using an odds ratio, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI)-Prevalence Critical Appraisal Checklist for studies reporting prevalence and incidence data independently by 2 authors (S.W.L. and I.D.). We combined the proportion of patients with fistulas in each study to calculate the pooled prevalence for each study. We performed sub-analysis of individual types of fistula to find a prevalence for all of these. We then performed a random effects model in order to pool the data to provide an estimate of the prevalence of pouch fistulas. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Heterogeneity was considered low for an I2 value of 0% to 30%, moderate for 30% to 70% and significant for > 70%. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot inspection, Egger’s test, and Begg’s test. All statistics were generated using R with the package “meta.” Egger’s test assesses publication bias by using funnel plots. They calculate the linear regression of the intervention effect estimates on their standard errors weighted by their inverse variance. The presence of an asymmetric funnel plot indicates publication bias.
Data was extracted by 2 independent reviewers (S.W.L. and I.D.) using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Discrepancies were resolved with a third reviewer (D.S.). Studies excluded during full text review is provided in Supplementary Table 2. We combined the proportion of individuals with fistulas in each study to give a pooled prevalence for all studies.
The systematic review followed a prior defined protocol with comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases including conference proceedings, and followed steps as recommended in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines for reporting systematic reviews. The systematic review was registered with PROSPERO, and was assigned an ID of CRD42022325073.
The search revealed 20,002 studies. After screening there were 34 studies remaining for analysis (Fig. 1). These studies reported on 14,343 patients with 1,103 patients developing pouch fistulas. The characteristics of the studies are displayed in Table 1 [5-38]. All 34 studies met our threshold of scoring at least 7 out of 9 on the JBI-Prevalence Critical Appraisal Checklist (Supplementary Table 3).
1. Any Fistula Prevalence
Thirty-four studies reported on 14,343 patients with 1,103 of these patients having at least 1 fistula. This produced a pooled prevalence of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04–0.08) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 90%) (Fig. 2). Eggers’ test indicates the presence of funnel plot asymmetry suggesting publication bias (P=0.01) (Supplementary Fig. 1).
2. Pouch-Vaginal Fistula Prevalence
Twelve studies reported on 707 female patients with 47 of these patients reported to have a pouch-vaginal fistula. This produced a pooled prevalence of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04–0.10) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 37.4%) (Fig. 3). Eggers’ test indicates the presence of funnel plot asymmetry suggesting publication bias (P=0.02) (Supplementary Fig. 2).
3. Pouch-Anal Anastomosis Fistula Prevalence
Ten studies reported on 1,998 patients with 134 of these patients reported to have a pouch–anal anastomosis fistula. This produced a pooled prevalence of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.03–0.09) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 64%) (Fig. 4). Eggers’ test indicates the presence of funnel plot asymmetry suggesting publication bias (P=0.03) (Supplementary Fig. 3).
4. Prevalence of Pouch Failure in Patients with Pouch Fistulas
Fourteen studies reported on 325 patients with pouch fistula with 82 of those developing pouch failure. This produced a pooled prevalence of 0.25 (95% CI, 0.19–0.32) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 15.6%) (Fig. 5). Eggers’ test does not indicate the presence of funnel plot asymmetry suggesting absence of publication bias (P=0.8) (Supplementary Fig. 4).
5. Prevalence of Pouch Fistulas with Time
Four studies reported on 655 patients with pouch follow-up at 3 years. Twenty-five of those patients were reported to have developed a pouch fistula. This produced a pooled prevalence of 0.04 (95% CI, 0.02–0.07) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 33%) (Supplementary Fig. 5). Eggers’ test was unable to be calculated due to a paucity of studies.
When assessing the prevalence of fistula at 5 years, 21 studies reported on 6,667 patients. Four hundred and twelve of those patients were reported to have developed a pouch fistula. This produced a pooled prevalence of 0.05 (95% CI, 0.02–0.07) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 89%) (Supplementary Fig. 6). Eggers’ test does not indicate the presence of funnel plot asymmetry suggesting absence of publication bias (P=0.05) (Supplementary Fig. 7).
In the assessment of prevalence of pouch fistula at more than 5 years, 8 studies reported on 2,327 patients, with 134 patients developing a fistula during this time. This produced a pooled prevalence of 0.05 (95% CI, 0.02–0.10) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 91%) (Supplementary Fig. 8). Eggers’ test was unable to be calculated due to a paucity of studies.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we demonstrated an overall prevalence of 6% for fistula among patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA for UC. When examining specific anatomy of fistulas after IPAA, the prevalence of pouch-vaginal fistula and anal-pouch anastomosis fistula were both 6%. Perhaps most concerning, the prevalence of pouch failure in patients with a pouch fistula was found to be 25%. These estimates can anchor discussions for patients in both the preoperative and postoperative setting and may inform future guidelines.
A recent meta-analysis by Pellino et al. [39] in 2022 looking at pouch fistula prevalence and failure until 2020 supported our findings on pouch failure rates. Their pouch failure rate was found to be 18% which is similar to our rate of 25%. Their paper added to the literature by reporting on CD development of the pouch. Our meta-analysis is unique as we report a pooled prevalence of pouch fistulas whereas due to their study design they reported that pouch fistula prevalence was between 1.5% and 12%. Our meta-analysis found almost double the number of fistulas.
The management of pouch fistulas involves a combination of surgical and non-surgical interventions. Surgical management is often the first line of treatment for pouch fistulas. Simple fistulas are often managed with seton placement. Failing this or in more complex fistulas options include the creating of a transanal-ileal advancement flap, ileal diversion and fistulectomy. Excision of the pouch and ostomy creation is often the final resort. Medical interventions mainly focus on antibiotic therapy to treat or prevent infections but have limited efficacy [40]. Biologics and small molecules have been shown to be an option when the fistula has been caused by CD development in the pouch [41]. There is a paucity of trials into the management of pouch fistulas. Currently management is centered around multi-disciplinary team meetings using local experience to make decisions. However, such a relatively high prevalence complication deserves a more evidence-based approach and this meta-analysis can help to power these sorely needed future studies.
Our review has multiple strengths, including a large sample size of over 21,000 patients from a variety of countries around the world. This ensured that the results generated are applicable to most if not all population cohorts. In addition, this serves to close a current gap in the literature where such data does not exist. Secondly, we set up an extensive search strategy which included a well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria as discussed in methods, in order to identify as many relevant studies as possible.
There are several limitations to this study, most of which are inherent to meta-analyses. The studies included were all observational cohort studies with significant heterogeneity with their results which may lead to selection bias. There was a paucity in the number of studies reporting; the type of fistula patients developed; how patients developed fistulas in relation to time; the presence of pouchitis and disease activity; pouch fistula by sex. This may lead to bias in our results. By design, the pediatric population was excluded and thus our results are not applicable to this cohort.
Our review is the first to report a pooled prevalence for pouch fistulas. These findings can help to counsel patients prior to undergoing pouch formation and may shape future guidelines and health policies for fistula surveillance. In addition, our results can help to power future studies which are sorely needed to improve our understanding of the natural history of pouch fistulas after IPAA for UC. However, caution must be taken due to the high heterogeneity and risk of publication bias in our study.

Funding Source

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Kayal M, Barnes EL, Segal JP. Data curation: Lo SW, Dharia I, Sriranganathan D. Formal analysis: Segal JP. Methodology: Dharia I, Segal JP. Supervision: Segal JP. Writing - original draft: Lo SW, Dharia I, Sriranganathan D. Writing - review & editing: Sriranganathan D, Kayal M, Barnes EL, Segal JP. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Supplementary materials are available at the Intestinal Research website (https://www.irjournal.org).

Supplementary Table 1.

Search Strategy
ir-2024-00009-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf

Supplementary Table 2.

Excluded Studies in Full Text Review
ir-2024-00009-Supplementary-Table-2.pdf

Supplementary Table 3.

JBI-Prevalence Critical Appraisal Checklist
ir-2024-00009-Supplementary-Table-3.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 1.

Funnel plot of studies reporting the prevalence of at least 1 fistula in patients with a pouch.
ir-2024-00009-Supplementary-Fig-1.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 2.

Funnel plot of studies reporting the prevalence of vaginal-pouch fistulas in patients with a pouch.
ir-2024-00009-Supplementary-Fig-2.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 3.

Funnel plot of studies reporting the prevalence of anal-pouch fistulas in patients with a pouch.
ir-2024-00009-Supplementary-Fig-3.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 4.

Funnel plot of studies reporting the prevalence of pouch failure in patients with a pouch fistula.
ir-2024-00009-Supplementary-Fig-4.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 5.

Forest plot of studies reporting the prevalence of at least 1 fistula in patients with a pouch at 3 years.
ir-2024-00009-Supplementary-Fig-5.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 6.

Forest plot of studies reporting the prevalence of at least 1 fistula in patients with a pouch at 5 years.
ir-2024-00009-Supplementary-Fig-6.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 7.

Funnel plot of studies reporting the prevalence of at least 1 fistula in patients with a pouch at 5 years.
ir-2024-00009-Supplementary-Fig-7.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 8.

Forest plot of studies reporting the prevalence of at least 1 fistula in patients with a pouch at more than 5 years.
ir-2024-00009-Supplementary-Fig-8.pdf
Fig. 1.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagram.
ir-2024-00009f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Forest plot of studies reporting the prevalence of at least 1 fistula in patients with a pouch.
ir-2024-00009f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
Forest plot of studies reporting the prevalence of pouch-vaginal fistulas in patients with a pouch.
ir-2024-00009f3.jpg
Fig. 4.
Forest plot of studies reporting the prevalence of anal-pouch fistulas in patients with a pouch.
ir-2024-00009f4.jpg
Fig. 5.
Forest plot of studies reporting the prevalence of pouch failure in patients with a pouch fistula.
ir-2024-00009f5.jpg
Table 1.
Characteristics of Studies
Author (year) Country Sex (M:F) Total patients Patients with fistula Median follow-up (yr) Patients with pouch failure
Allen et al. (2012) [5] UK 60:42 102 13 NA NA
Arai et al. (2004) [6] Japan 168:128 296 12 4.38 3
Carcamo et al. (2020) [7] Chile 49:67 116 22 20 9
Cho et al. (2012) [8] South Korea 35:18 55 2 4.2 NA
Davies et al. (2006) [9] UK 35:52 87 2 3 1
Dayton et al. (2002) [10] USA 339:226 565 9 6.5 7
ElHak et al. (2014) [11] Egypt NA 107 3 NA 2
Hahnloser et al. (2007) [12] USA 1,023:862 1,885 264 NA 113
Heimann et al. (2022) [13] USA 249:226 475 44 NA 38
Helavirta et al. (2020) [14] Finland 282:209 491 12 11 53
Ho et al. (2006) [15] USA 135:195 330 20 NA 8
Ide et al. (2017) [16] Japan 120:114 248 6 NA 11
Ikeuchi et al. (2010) [17] Japan 540:460 1,000 16 NA 28
Johnson et al. (2001) [18] Norway 41:31 64 7 NA 6
Kjaer et al. (2016) [19] Denmark 18:30 447 58 NA 34
Körsgen et al. (1996) [20] UK NA 180 21 NA 17
Krausz et al. (2005) [21] Israel 91:83 174 10 5.4 4
Kuwabara et al. (2021) [22] Japan 199:121 320 9 NA 2
Lavryk et al. (2019) [23] USA 1,615:1,182 2,797 216 NA 134
Lepistö et al. (2002) [24] Finland 281:206 486 45 NA 15
Lightner et al. (2017) [25] USA 1,020:855 1,875 164 16.1 94
Lim et al. (2021) [26] Australia 121:91 212 26 4.2 9
Lorenzo et al. (2016) [27] Italy 124:61 185 32 NA 20
Macaluso et al. (2017) [28] Italy NA 71 11 9.2 6
Mennigen et al. (2012) [29] Germany 80:50 130 2 2 4
Parra et al. (2019) [30] Brazil 20:34 54 5 NA 5
Ryoo et al. (2014) [31] South Korea 28:44 72 11 6.9 2
Shimada et al. (2020) [32] Japan 131:93 224 1 6.3 13
Tan et al. (2014) [33] Australia 82:60 142 9 3 4
Teixeira et al. (2003) [34] Brazil 40:40 80 1 9 1
Tulchinsky et al. (2008) [35] Israel 57:63 120 13 5.4 NA
Villamil et al. (2011) [36] Puerto Rico 46:42 88 9 NA 10
Zárate et al. (2008) [37] Chile 46:61 107 2 NA 4
Zittan et al. (2017) [38] Canada 437:321 758 26 NA 7

NA, not available.

  • 1. Sofo L, Caprino P, Sacchetti F, Bossola M. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: a narrative review. World J Gastrointest Surg 2016;8:556–563.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 2. Freeha K, Bo S. Complications related to J-pouch surgery. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 2018;14:571–576.PubMedPMC
  • 3. Wei Y, Gong JF, Zhu WM. Endoscopic closure instead of surgery to close an ileal pouch fistula with the over-the-scope clip system. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2017;9:95–98.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 4. Wasmuth HH, Tranø G, Wibe A, Endreseth BH, Rydning A, Myrvold HE. Failed pelvic pouch substituted by continent ileostomy. Colorectal Dis 2010;12(7 Online): e109–e113.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Allen N, Garforth E, Heath R, Rooney P. PTU-120 A review of patients in a single centre with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and an assessment of those patients who require on going medical therapy. Gut 2012;61(Suppl 2): A234.Article
  • 6. Arai K, Koganei K, Kimura H, et al. Incidence and outcome of complications following restorative proctocolectomy. Am J Surg 2005;190:39–42.ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Carcamo L, Miranda P, Zúñiga A, et al. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in ulcerative colitis: outcomes, functional results, and quality of life in patients with more than 10-year follow-up. Int J Colorectal Dis 2020;35:747–753.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 8. Cho W, Cho YB, Kim JY, et al. Outcome of total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. J Korean Surg Soc 2012;83:135–140.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 9. Davies M, Hawley PR. Ten years experience of one-stage restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2007;22:1255–1260.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 10. Dayton MT, Larsen KR, Christiansen DD. Similar functional results and complications after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with indeterminate vs ulcerative colitis. Arch Surg 2002;137:690–695.ArticlePubMed
  • 11. ElHak NG, ElGeidie AA, El Hemaly M, Monier A. P179 Outcome of pouch surgery for ulcerative colitis in 124 Egyptian patients. J Crohns Colitis 2014;8(Supplement_1): S137.Article
  • 12. Hahnloser D, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG, Larson DR, Crownhart BS, Dozois RR. Results at up to 20 years after ileal pouchanal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. Br J Surg 2007;94:333–340.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 13. Heimann TM, Swaminathan S, Slater GI, Kurtz RJ. Perianal fistula after ileoanal pouch in patients with ulcerative colitis: a review of 475 patients operated on at a major IBD center. Dis Colon Rectum 2022;65:76–82.ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Helavirta I, Lehto K, Huhtala H, Hyöty M, Collin P, Aitola P. Pouch failures following restorative proctocolectomy in ulcerative colitis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2020;35:2027–2033.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 15. Ho KS, Chang CC, Baig MK, et al. Ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis is feasible for septuagenarians. Colorectal Dis 2006;8:235–238.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Ide S, Araki T, Okita Y, et al. Outcome and functional prognosis of pelvic sepsis after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with ulcerative colitis. Surg Today 2017;47:301–306.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 17. Ikeuchi H, Uchino M, Matsuoka H, et al. Surgery for ulcerative colitis in 1,000 patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 2010;25:959–965.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 18. Johnson E, Carlsen E, Nazir M, Nygaard K. Morbidity and functional outcome after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. Eur J Surg 2001;167:40–45.PubMed
  • 19. Kjaer MD, Kjeldsen J, Qvist N. Poor outcomes of complicated pouch-related fistulas after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery. Scand J Surg 2016;105:163–167.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 20. Körsgen S, Keighley MR. Causes of failure and life expectancy of the ileoanal pouch. Int J Colorectal Dis 1997;12:4–8.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 21. Krausz MM, Duek SD. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: twenty years follow-up in 174 patients. Isr Med Assoc J 2005;7:23–27.PubMed
  • 22. Kuwabara H, Kimura H, Kunisaki R, et al. Postoperative complications, bowel function, and prognosis in restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis: a single-center observational study of 320 patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 2022;37:563–572.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 23. Lavryk OA, Stocchi L, Hull TL, et al. Impact of preoperative duration of ulcerative colitis on long-term outcomes of restorative proctocolectomy. Int J Colorectal Dis 2020;35:41–49.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 24. Lepistö A, Luukkonen P, Järvinen HJ. Cumulative failure rate of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and quality of life after failure. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45:1289–1294.ArticlePubMed
  • 25. Lightner AL, Mathis KL, Dozois EJ, et al. Results at up to 30 years after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2017;23:781–790.ArticlePubMed
  • 26. Lim MH, Lord AR, Simms LA, et al. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: an Australian institution’s experience. Ann Coloproctol 2021;37:318–325.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 27. Lorenzo G, Maurizio C, Maria LP, et al. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis 20 years later: is it still a good surgical option for patients with ulcerative colitis? Int J Colorectal Dis 2016;31:1835–1843.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 28. Macaluso FS, Rossi F, Orlando A, et al. P372 The long term course of patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis 2017;(suppl_1): 11:S267.Article
  • 29. Mennigen R, Senninger N, Bruewer M, Rijcken E. Pouch function and quality of life after successful management of pouchrelated septic complications in patients with ulcerative colitis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2012;397:37–44.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 30. Parra RS, Feitosa MS, Pereira FC, Rodrigues RS, Féres O, Ribeiro da Rocha JJ. P300 Long-term surgical outcomes following restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis in a tertiary IBD centre in Brazil. J Crohns Colitis 2019;13(Suppl_1): S249–S250.Article
  • 31. Ryoo SB, Oh HK, Han EC, et al. Complications after ileal pouchanal anastomosis in Korean patients with ulcerative colitis. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:7488–7496.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 32. Shimada N, Ohge H, Watadani Y, et al. Undesired permanent ileostomy after ileal-pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis, which was associated with pouch fistula. Dis Colon Rectum 2020;63:e349–e350.
  • 33. Tan KK, Ravindran P, Young CJ, Solomon MJ. The extent of inflammation is a predictor for pouch-related complications in ileal pouches in patients with ulcerative or indeterminate colitis. Colorectal Dis 2014;16:620–625.ArticlePubMed
  • 34. Teixeira MG, Ponte AC, Sousa M, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo 2003;58:193–198.ArticlePubMed
  • 35. Tulchinsky H, Dotan I, Alper A, et al. Comprehensive pouch clinic concept for follow-up of patients after ileal pouch anal anastomosis: report of 3 years’ experience in a tertiary referral center. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2008;14:1125–1132.ArticlePubMed
  • 36. Villamil I, Abreu Y, Suleiman W, et al. Outcomes of patients with ulcerative colitis and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis at the University of Puerto Rico Center for inflammatory bowel diseases. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:S474.Article
  • 37. Zárate CA, Zúñiga DA, Pinedo MG, López KF, Molina PME, Viviani GP. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: complications and long term functional results. Rev Med Chil 2008;136:467–474.PubMed
  • 38. Zittan E, Ma GW, Wong-Chong N, et al. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: a Canadian institution’s experience. Int J Colorectal Dis 2017;32:281–285.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 39. Pellino G, Celentano V, Vinci D, et al. Ileoanal pouch-related fistulae: a systematic review with meta-analysis on incidence, treatment options and outcomes. Dig Liver Dis 2023;55:342–349.ArticlePubMed
  • 40. Ng KS, Gonsalves SJ, Sagar PM. Ileal-anal pouches: a review of its history, indications, and complications. World J Gastroenterol 2019;25:4320–4342.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 41. Yadav A, Foromera J, Falchuk KR, Feuerstein JD. Biologics and immunomodulators for treating Crohn’s disease developing after surgery for an initial diagnosis of ulcerative colitis: a review of current literature. Scand J Gastroenterol 2018;53:813–817.ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • PubReader PubReader
      • ePub LinkePub Link
      • Cite
        CITE
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        The prevalence of pouch fistulas in ulcerative colitis following restorative proctocolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      • 2
      • 3
      • 4
      Related articles
      The prevalence of pouch fistulas in ulcerative colitis following restorative proctocolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
      Image Image Image Image Image
      Fig. 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagram.
      Fig. 2. Forest plot of studies reporting the prevalence of at least 1 fistula in patients with a pouch.
      Fig. 3. Forest plot of studies reporting the prevalence of pouch-vaginal fistulas in patients with a pouch.
      Fig. 4. Forest plot of studies reporting the prevalence of anal-pouch fistulas in patients with a pouch.
      Fig. 5. Forest plot of studies reporting the prevalence of pouch failure in patients with a pouch fistula.
      The prevalence of pouch fistulas in ulcerative colitis following restorative proctocolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
      Author (year) Country Sex (M:F) Total patients Patients with fistula Median follow-up (yr) Patients with pouch failure
      Allen et al. (2012) [5] UK 60:42 102 13 NA NA
      Arai et al. (2004) [6] Japan 168:128 296 12 4.38 3
      Carcamo et al. (2020) [7] Chile 49:67 116 22 20 9
      Cho et al. (2012) [8] South Korea 35:18 55 2 4.2 NA
      Davies et al. (2006) [9] UK 35:52 87 2 3 1
      Dayton et al. (2002) [10] USA 339:226 565 9 6.5 7
      ElHak et al. (2014) [11] Egypt NA 107 3 NA 2
      Hahnloser et al. (2007) [12] USA 1,023:862 1,885 264 NA 113
      Heimann et al. (2022) [13] USA 249:226 475 44 NA 38
      Helavirta et al. (2020) [14] Finland 282:209 491 12 11 53
      Ho et al. (2006) [15] USA 135:195 330 20 NA 8
      Ide et al. (2017) [16] Japan 120:114 248 6 NA 11
      Ikeuchi et al. (2010) [17] Japan 540:460 1,000 16 NA 28
      Johnson et al. (2001) [18] Norway 41:31 64 7 NA 6
      Kjaer et al. (2016) [19] Denmark 18:30 447 58 NA 34
      Körsgen et al. (1996) [20] UK NA 180 21 NA 17
      Krausz et al. (2005) [21] Israel 91:83 174 10 5.4 4
      Kuwabara et al. (2021) [22] Japan 199:121 320 9 NA 2
      Lavryk et al. (2019) [23] USA 1,615:1,182 2,797 216 NA 134
      Lepistö et al. (2002) [24] Finland 281:206 486 45 NA 15
      Lightner et al. (2017) [25] USA 1,020:855 1,875 164 16.1 94
      Lim et al. (2021) [26] Australia 121:91 212 26 4.2 9
      Lorenzo et al. (2016) [27] Italy 124:61 185 32 NA 20
      Macaluso et al. (2017) [28] Italy NA 71 11 9.2 6
      Mennigen et al. (2012) [29] Germany 80:50 130 2 2 4
      Parra et al. (2019) [30] Brazil 20:34 54 5 NA 5
      Ryoo et al. (2014) [31] South Korea 28:44 72 11 6.9 2
      Shimada et al. (2020) [32] Japan 131:93 224 1 6.3 13
      Tan et al. (2014) [33] Australia 82:60 142 9 3 4
      Teixeira et al. (2003) [34] Brazil 40:40 80 1 9 1
      Tulchinsky et al. (2008) [35] Israel 57:63 120 13 5.4 NA
      Villamil et al. (2011) [36] Puerto Rico 46:42 88 9 NA 10
      Zárate et al. (2008) [37] Chile 46:61 107 2 NA 4
      Zittan et al. (2017) [38] Canada 437:321 758 26 NA 7
      Table 1. Characteristics of Studies

      NA, not available.


      Intest Res : Intestinal Research
      Close layer
      TOP