Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1997 Jun;84(6):814-8.

Outcome of 200 restorative proctocolectomy operations: the John Radcliffe Hospital experience

Affiliations
  • PMID: 9189096

Outcome of 200 restorative proctocolectomy operations: the John Radcliffe Hospital experience

J Romanos et al. Br J Surg. 1997 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Restorative proctocolectomy is now the operation of choice for the definitive management of ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP).

Methods: A total of 200 patients (117 male, 83 female) underwent restorative proctocolectomy over a 12-year period. Information in a dedicated prospective database was supplemented by chart review. Some 177 had ulcerative colitis, 13 had indeterminate colitis and seven had FAP. Pouch designs were two-loop J (n = 142), four-loop W (n = 45) and three-loop S (n = 13). The majority (73.5 per cent) had a stapled ileoanal anastomosis and 139 patients had a defunctioning ileostomy.

Results: There were no deaths. Early morbidity (less than 30 days after operation) included 76 complications in 71 patients (35.5 per cent), of which 35 were related to the pouch itself. Long-term follow-up data were available for 196 patients at a median of 27 months. Sixteen pouches (8.0 per cent) have been excised. Mean daytime frequency was 4.5 (range 1-15). Of 175 patients with colitis, 42 (24.0 per cent) had one or more episodes of pouchitis.

Conclusion: Continuous improvements in operative technique have simplified the procedure, and functional results, although variable, have generally been acceptable.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by