Search

Introduction: Restorative proctocolectomy has gained acceptance in the surgical management of medically refractive ulcerative colitis and cancer prevention in familial adenomatous polyposis. Incontinence following restorative proctocolectomy occurs in up to 25% of patients overnight. The Renew® insert is an inert single‐use device which acts as an anal plug. The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability, effectiveness and safety of the Renew® insert in patients who have undergone restorative proctocolectomy. The device has yet to be assessed in patients who have undergone restorative proctocolectomy. Method: This was a prospective study exploring the acceptability, effectiveness and safety of the Renew® insert in improving incontinence in patients who had undergone restorative proctocolectomy. A total of 15 patients with incontinence were asked to use the Renew® insert for 14 days following their standard care. The Incontinence Questionnaire–Bowels was used pre‐ and posttreatment to assess response and patients were asked to report the perceived acceptability, effectiveness and safety of the device at the end of the trial. Results: The device was acceptable to 8/15 (53%) of patients and was effective in 6/15 (40%). Only 2/15 (13%) of patients raised any safety concerns, and these were minor. The device was associated with a significant reduction in night seepage (P = 0.034). Conclusion: In a small study, the Renew® insert can be both acceptable and effective and is also associated with few safety concerns. It is also associated with significant reductions in night‐time seepage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: There is a requirement of an expansive and up to date review of surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can dovetail with the medical guidelines produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology. Methods: Surgeons who are members of the ACPGBI with a recognised interest in IBD were invited to contribute various sections of the guidelines. They were directed to produce a procedure based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. An editorial board was convened to ensure consistency of style, presentation and quality. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after 2 votes were included in the guidelines. Results: All aspects of surgical care for IBD have been included along with 157 recommendations for management. Conclusion: These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of IBD and will serve as a useful practical text for clinicians performing this type of surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Chronic peri-pouch sepsis (CPPS) may be mistaken for antibiotic-dependent or refractory primary idiopathic pouchitis (ADRP), but requires different treatment such as drainage. The study aimed to identify the prevalence of CPPS in patients thought to have ADRP. The secondary aims were to identify any specific features on pouchoscopy suggesting CPPS and to determine the results of treatment for CPPS. Method The records of patients who had been treated for ADRP between March 2006 and June 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. Only those with endoscopic evidence of pouch inflammation who had also undergone MRI of the pelvis were included. The findings on pouchoscopy and the outcome of treatment were determined. Results Sixty-eight patients (43 men, 63%) were identified with apparent ADRP between March 2006 and June 2015. MRI of the pelvis showed CPPS in 26 (38%). In those with CPPS, the inflammation was more often located in the upper pouch alone (15%) compared with patients without CPPS (0%) ( P = 0.0184). Examination under anaesthesia was performed in 13 of those with CPPS. In five a collection was identified and drained; symptoms improved in only one (4%). Eighteen patients (69%) remained on antibiotics and seven (27%) had a defunctioning stoma or underwent pouch excision. Conclusion In patients thought to have ADRP, 38% had CPPS on MRI. There was no clinically relevant specific feature on pouchoscopy suggestive of CPPS. The possibility of CPPS should be considered early in patients with apparent ADRP and pelvic MRI performed. This might lead to earlier detection of CPPS and appropriate treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]