Comparable perioperative outcomes, long-term outcomes, and quality of life in a retrospective analysis of ulcerative colitis patients following 2-stage versus 3-stage proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis

Purpose Many surgeons assume 3-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is safer than 2-stage IPAA in patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC), although recent data suggest outcomes are comparable. This study aimed to compare perioperative complications, late complications, and functional outcomes after 2- versus 3-stage IPAA in patients with active UC. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent 2- or 3-stage IPAA for active UC from 2000 to 2015 in a high-volume institution. Patients completed quality-of-life surveys 6 months following ileostomy reversal. Perioperative and late complications were recorded. Outcomes were compared with the Fisher exact test, and multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders. Results We identified 212 patients who underwent 2- or 3-stage IPAA for active UC, of whom 157 patients (74.1%) underwent 2-stage procedures and 55 (25.9%) underwent 3-stage procedures. More patients undergoing 2-stage procedures were taking immunomodulators preoperatively (46.3% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.01), but there was no difference in use of steroids ( p = 0.09) or biologic agents ( p = 0.85). Three-stage procedures were more likely to be urgent (78.6% vs. 30.2%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in perioperative complications ( p = 0.50), anastomotic leak ( p = 0.94), pouchitis ( p = 0.45), pouch failure ( p = 0.46), perceived quality of life ( p = 0.68), number of bowel movements per day ( p = 0.27), or sexual satisfaction ( p = 0.21) between the 2- and 3-stage groups. Conclusions Patients undergoing 2-stage compared to 3-stage IPAA for active ulcerative colitis have comparable outcomes and quality of life following ileostomy reversal. Two-stage IPAA appears to be safe and appropriate, even in high-risk patients.