We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis in obese patients.
Obesity Surgery 2001 June
BACKGROUND: Obesity is a relative contraindication to performing restorative proctocolectomy. The aim of this study was to assess the morbidity and functional results after restorative proctocolectomy in obese patients as compared to a matched cohort of non-obese patients.
METHODS: 334 patients who had restorative proctocolectomy were reviewed; obesity was defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2. 31 obese patients were matched to 31 non-obese patients for age, gender, steroid use, and diagnosis. Operative time, length of hospitalization, and both perioperative (< 6 weeks) and long-term morbidity (> 6 weeks), especially sepsis, were evaluated.
RESULTS: The BMI was significantly higher in the obese group (33.7 vs 23.2) (p < 0.0001), and no difference was found between the obese and non-obese groups relative to the matched parameters of age, gender, steroid use and diagnosis. There was no difference in the rate of mucosectomy performed between the obese and non-obese patients (9.6% vs 3.2%, p = NS). 16% of the obese patients underwent one stage restorative proctocolectomies as compared to 10% in the non-obese group. Operative time was longer in the obese group (229 min vs 196 min; p = 0.02), but overall hospital length of stay was similar (9.7 days vs 7.7 days; p = 0.13). Perioperative morbidity was higher in obese patients (32% vs 9.6%, p = 0.058). However, there was no statistical significance in long-term morbidity (23% vs 32%, p = 0.57) at a mean follow-up of 51 months in the obese group and 53 months in the non-obese group. Obese patients had more stomal complications (10 vs 0%) and incisional hernias (13 vs 3%) (p = NS). Overall the pelvic sepsis-rate was significantly higher in the obese group (16 vs 0%; p < 0.05). 60% of the obese patients who developed pelvic sepsis had pouch-anal anastomosis performed without proximal fecal diversion. Mean bowel movements/24 hours, pad use, nocturnal evacuation, accidents/24 hours and incontinence scores were not statistically significant between the groups.
CONCLUSION: Obese patients have a higher rate of pelvic sepsis and peri-operative morbidity when compared to a matched non-obese cohort of patients; however, the functional outcome of restorative proctocolectomy in obese patients is not significantly different than in non-obese patients.
METHODS: 334 patients who had restorative proctocolectomy were reviewed; obesity was defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2. 31 obese patients were matched to 31 non-obese patients for age, gender, steroid use, and diagnosis. Operative time, length of hospitalization, and both perioperative (< 6 weeks) and long-term morbidity (> 6 weeks), especially sepsis, were evaluated.
RESULTS: The BMI was significantly higher in the obese group (33.7 vs 23.2) (p < 0.0001), and no difference was found between the obese and non-obese groups relative to the matched parameters of age, gender, steroid use and diagnosis. There was no difference in the rate of mucosectomy performed between the obese and non-obese patients (9.6% vs 3.2%, p = NS). 16% of the obese patients underwent one stage restorative proctocolectomies as compared to 10% in the non-obese group. Operative time was longer in the obese group (229 min vs 196 min; p = 0.02), but overall hospital length of stay was similar (9.7 days vs 7.7 days; p = 0.13). Perioperative morbidity was higher in obese patients (32% vs 9.6%, p = 0.058). However, there was no statistical significance in long-term morbidity (23% vs 32%, p = 0.57) at a mean follow-up of 51 months in the obese group and 53 months in the non-obese group. Obese patients had more stomal complications (10 vs 0%) and incisional hernias (13 vs 3%) (p = NS). Overall the pelvic sepsis-rate was significantly higher in the obese group (16 vs 0%; p < 0.05). 60% of the obese patients who developed pelvic sepsis had pouch-anal anastomosis performed without proximal fecal diversion. Mean bowel movements/24 hours, pad use, nocturnal evacuation, accidents/24 hours and incontinence scores were not statistically significant between the groups.
CONCLUSION: Obese patients have a higher rate of pelvic sepsis and peri-operative morbidity when compared to a matched non-obese cohort of patients; however, the functional outcome of restorative proctocolectomy in obese patients is not significantly different than in non-obese patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app