View More View Less
  • 1 Szegedi Tudományegyetem, Szeged, Semmelweis u. 8., 6720
  • 2 Szegedi Tudományegyetem, Szeged
  • 3 Szegedi Tudományegyetem, Szeged
Open access

Absztrakt:

Bevezetés: A colitis ulcerosában szenvedő betegpopuláció 20–30%-a szorul élete során sebészi kezelésre. Napjainkban a proctocolectomia ileoanalis pouch képzésével az általánosan elfogadott műtéti módszer, melynél egyre szélesebb körben alkalmazzák a laparoszkópos technikát. Célkitűzés: Az elmúlt 13 évben szerzett tapasztalatainkat mutatjuk be colitis ulcerosa kezelésében a hagyományos és a minimálisan invazív technika vonatkozásában. Módszer: 2005. január 1. és 2018. május 31. között 89 beteg (48 nő és 41 férfi) került műtétre intézetünkben colitis ulcerosa miatt. A betegek átlagéletkora a laparoszkópos és a nyitott csoportban 45,06 ± 14,4, illetve 39,8 ± 13,4 év volt. Vizsgáltuk a műtétre kerülő betegek általános állapotát, a műtéti beavatkozások korai és késői eredményeit, különös tekintettel a szövődményekre és az életminőség változásaira. Eredmények: Perioperatív időszakban a két csoport ápolási napjainak számában (10,3 ± 3,3 vs. 11,2 ± 3,7) és transzfúziós igényében (2,6 ± 2,2 vs. 2,8 ± 1,7) különbséget nem találtunk, azonban a laparoszkópos műtéteket követően az intenzív osztályon töltött napok száma (2,1 ± 0,9 vs. 2,5 ± 1,6) és a passzázs megindulásának napja (1,2 ± 0,5 vs. 1,6 ± 0,7) szignifikánsan rövidebb volt. Hosszú távú szövődmények, mint a passzázszavar, a septicus állapot, a posztoperatív sérvek és az „egyéb” komplikációk száma a laparoszkópos csoportban szignifikánsan kevesebb volt. Az akut műtéteket vizsgálva a laparoszkópia szignifikáns előnye igazolódott a műtét utáni passzázsrendeződés napjainak kapcsán (1,2 ± 0,4 vs. 1,8 ± 0,7). Következtetés: A colitis ulcerosa sebészi kezelésében a minimálisan invazív technika a nyitott műtétekhez képest kedvezőbb perioperatív eredményeket és hosszú távon jobb életminőséget biztosít, a kevesebb késői szövődmény megjelenésének és a betegek stabilabb pszichés állapotának következtében. Orv Hetil. 2020; 161(33): 1363–1372.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1

    Burisch J, Jess T, Martinato M, et al. The burden of inflammatory bowel disease in Europe. J Crohns Colitis 2013; 7: 322–337.

  • 2

    Marchioni Beery R, Kane S. Current approaches to the management of new-onset ulcerative colitis. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2014; 7: 111–132.

  • 3

    Parks AG, Nicholls RJ. Proctocolectomy without ileostomy for ulcerative colitis. Br Med J. 1978; 2: 85–88.

  • 4

    Peters WR. Laparoscopic total proctocolectomy with creation of ileostomy for ulcerative colitis: report of two cases. J Laparoendosc Surg. 1992; 2: 175–178.

  • 5

    Baek SJ, Lightner AL, Boostrom SY, et al. Functional outcomes following laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with chronic ulcerative colitis: long-term follow-up of a case-matched study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017; 21: 1304–1308.

  • 6

    Hata K, Kazama S, Nozawa H, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis: a review of the literature. Surg Today 2015; 45: 933–938.

  • 7

    Larson DW, Davies MM, Dozois EJ, et al. Sexual function, body image, and quality of life after laparoscopic and open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 392–396.

  • 8

    Polle SW, Dunker MS, Slors JF, et al. Body image, cosmesis, quality of life, and functional outcome of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy: long-term results of a randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 2007; 21: 1301–1307.

  • 9

    Wu XJ, He XS, Zhou XY, et al. The role of laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis: systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2010; 25: 949–957.

  • 10

    Dunker MS, Bemelman WA, Slors JF, et al. Functional outcome, quality of life, body image, and cosmesis in patients after laparoscopic-assisted and conventional restorative proctocolectomy: a comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 2001; 44: 1800–1807.

  • 11

    Larson DW, Dozois EJ, Piotrowicz K, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: functional outcome in a case-matched series. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48: 1845–1850.

  • 12

    Tajti J Jr, Látos M, Farkas K, et al. Effect of laparoscopic surgery on quality of life in ulcerative colitis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2018; 28: 833–838.

  • 13

    Tajti J Jr, Simonka Z, Paszt A, et al. Minimally invasive surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis – long-term results. [Colitis ulcerosa minimálisan invazív sebészi kezelése – hosszú távú eredmények.] Orv Hetil. 2015; 156: 1585–1592. [Hungarian]

  • 14

    Tajti J Jr, Simonka Z, Paszt A, et al. Role of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of ulcerative colitis; short- and mid-term results. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2015; 50: 406–412.

  • 15

    Nelson H, Sargent DJ, et al., for the Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350: 2050–2059.

  • 16

    Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, et al. Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005; 6: 477–484.

  • 17

    Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 365: 1718–1726.

  • 18

    Berkowitz L, Schultz BM, Salazar GA, et al. Impact of cigarette smoking on the gastrointestinal tract inflammation: opposing effects in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Front Immunol. 2018; 9: 74.

  • 19

    Gilat T, Dotan I. Ulcerative colitis and appendectomy. What is the nature of the (negative) association? Ital J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1997; 29: 212–213.

  • 20

    Singh P, Bhangu A, Nicholls RJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open restorative proctocolectomy. Colorectal Dis. 2013; 15: e340–e351.

  • 21

    Dolejs S, Kennedy G, Heise CP. Small bowel obstruction following restorative proctocolectomy: affected by a laparoscopic approach? J Surg Res. 2011; 170: 202–208.

  • 22

    Fichera A, Silvestri MT, Hurst RD, et al. Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a comparative observational study on long-term functional results. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009; 13: 526–532.

  • 23

    Peyrin-Biroulet L, Germain A, Patel AS, et al. Systematic review: outcomes and post-operative complications following colectomy for ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016; 44: 807–816.

  • 24

    Xu W, Ye H, Zhu Y, et al. Long-term quality of life associated with early surgical complications in patients with ulcerative colitis after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a single-center retrospective study. Int J Surg. 2017; 48: 174–179.

  • 25

    Lewis WG, Kuzu A, Sagar PM, et al. Stricture at the pouch-anal anastomosis after restorative proctocolectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1994; 37: 120–125.

  • 26

    Marcello PW, Roberts PL, Schoetz DJ Jr, et al. Long-term results of the ileoanal pouch procedure. Arch Surg. 1993; 128: 500–504.

  • 27

    Kraenzler A, Maggiori L, Pittet O, et al. Anastomotic stenosis after coloanal, colorectal and ileoanal anastomosis: what is the best management? Colorectal Dis. 2017; 19: O90–O96.

  • 28

    Magro F, Gionchetti P, Eliakim R, et al. Third European Evidence-based Consensus on Diagnosis and Management of Ulcerative Colitis. Part 1: Definitions, diagnosis, extra-intestinal manifestations, pregnancy, cancer surveillance, surgery, and ileo-anal pouch disorders. J Crohns Colitis 2017; 11: 649–670.

  • 29

    Colombo F, Pellino G, Selvaggi F, et al. Minimally invasive surgery and stoma-related complications after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. A two-centre comparison with open approach. Am J Surg. 2019; 217: 682–688.

  • 30

    Lavryk OA, Hull TL, Duraes LC, et al. Outcomes of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis without primary diverting loop ileostomy if postoperative sepsis develops. Tech Coloproctol. 2018; 22: 37–44.

  • 31

    Lavryk OA, Stocchi L, Ashburn JH, et al. Case-matched comparison of long-term functional and quality of life outcomes following laparoscopic versus open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. World J Surg. 2018; 42: 3746–3754.

  • 32

    Gallo G, Kotze PG, Spinelli A. Surgery in ulcerative colitis: When? How? Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2018; 32–33: 71–78.

  • 33

    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.

  • 34

    Hata K, Ishihara S, Nozawa H, et al. Pouchitis after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in ulcerative colitis: Diagnosis, management, risk factors, and incidence. Dig Endosc. 2017; 29: 26–34.

  • 35

    Mark-Christensen A, Erichsen R, Brandsborg S, et al. Pouch failures following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Colorectal Dis. 2018; 20: 44–52.

  • 36

    Mineccia M, Cravero F, Massucco P, et al. Laparoscopic vs open restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA for ulcerative colitis: impact of surgical technique on creating a well functioning pouch. Int J Surg. 2018; 55: 201–206.

  • 37

    Hicks CW, Hodin RA, Bordeianou L. Semi-urgent surgery in hospitalized patients with severe ulcerative colitis does not increase overall J-pouch complications. Am J Surg. 2014; 207: 281–287.

  • 38

    Guyatt G, Mitchell A, Irvine EJ, et al. A new measure of health status for clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 1989; 96: 804–810.

  • 39

    Oresland T, Fasth S, Nordgren S, et al. The clinical and functional outcome after restorative proctocolectomy. A prospective study in 100 patients. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1989; 4: 50–56.

  • 40

    Eypasch E, Williams JI, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al. Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index: development, validation and application of a new instrument. Br J Surg. 1995; 82: 216–222.

  • 41

    Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1970.

  • 42

    Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M, et al. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1961; 4: 561–571.

  • 43

    Broadbent E, Petrie KJ, Main J, et al. The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res. 2006; 60: 631–637.

  • 44

    Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The International Classification of Headache Disorders. 3rd edition (beta version). Cephalalgia 2013; 33: 629–808.

  • 45

    Abolfotouh S, Rautio T, Klintrup K, et al. Predictors of quality-of-life after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with ulcerative colitis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017; 52: 1078–1085.

  • 46

    Helavirta I, Hyöty M, Oksanen P, et al. Health-related quality of life after restorative proctocolectomy: a cross-sectional study. Scand J Surg. 2018; 107: 315–321.

  • 47

    Lavryk OA, Stocchi L, Hull TL, et al. Factors associated with long-term quality of life after restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019; 23: 571–579.

  • 48

    Seifarth C, Börner L, Siegmund B, et al. Impact of staged surgery on quality of life in refractory ulcerative colitis. Surg Endosc. 2017; 31: 643–649.

  • 49

    Bączyk G, Formanowicz D, Gmerek Ł, et al. Health-related quality of life assessment among patients with inflammatory bowel diseases after surgery – review. Prz Gastroenterol. 2017; 12: 6–16.

  • 50

    Tajti J Jr, Látos M, Ábrahám S, et al. Tension-type headache in ulcerative colitis. [Tenziós típusú fejfájás és colitis ulcerosa.] Ideggyógy Szle. 2017; 70: 389–393. [Hungarian]

 

The author instructions are available in PDF.
Instructions for Authors in Hungarian HERE.

 

Mendeley citation style is available HERE.

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
1 085
Impact Factor 0,497
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
0,212
5 Year
Impact Factor
0,396
Immediacy
Index
0,126
Citable
Items
247
Total
Articles
176
Total
Reviews
71
Cited
Half-Life
6,1
Citing
Half-Life
7,3
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00071
Article Influence
Score
0,045
% Articles
in
Citable Items
71,26
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,08759
Average
IF
Percentile
10,606
Scimago
H-index
20
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,176
Scopus
Scite Score
864/1178=0,4
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
General Medicine 267/529 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,254
Acceptance
Rate
73%

 

Language: Hungarian

Founded in 1857
Publication: Weekly, one volume of 52 issues annually

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Papp Zoltán

Read the professional career of Papp Zoltán HERE.

 

Editorial Board

Click for the Editorial Board

Akadémiai Kiadó
Address: Prielle Kornélia u. 21-35. H-1117 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: (+36 1) 464 8235 ---- Fax: (+36 1) 464 8221
Email: orvosihetilap@akkrt.hu