ISSN:
1530-0358
Keywords:
Cyclosporin
;
Steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis
;
Subtotal colectomy
;
Immune suppressor drugs
;
Surgical outcomes
Source:
Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
Topics:
Medicine
Notes:
Abstract PURPOSE: The recent introduction of the immune suppressor cyclosporin for treatment of steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis has required surgeons to perform a colectomy in those patients who eventually fail this rescue treatment, thus raising questions as to the safety of surgery as performed in patients with a heavily manipulated immune system. To assess the rates of mortality and morbidity in this setting, we studied a cohort of consecutive patients who had surgery after failing cyclosporin for refractory ulcerative colitis at our center. METHODS: Between January 1991 and December 1996, 25 patients with ulcerative colitis underwent restorative proctocolectomy performed in three steps (21 patients) and in two steps (4 patients). Seventeen of the 25 patients (68 percent) were initial nonresponders to a dose of 2 mg/kg/day of intravenous cyclosporin and underwent surgery immediately, the remaining 8 (32 percent) relapsed as outpatients on oral cyclosporin and were readmitted for surgery. RESULTS: There was no operative mortality. Nine patients of the 25 developed postoperative (early) complications (36 percent). The three-step operation subset had a 28 percent complication rate, the two-step 75 percent. Three patients needed reoperation. A total of 11 patients (44 percent) reported with late complications: two patients required surgical treatment, one for obstruction and one for pouch-perianal fistula. Three cases of pouchitis were recorded. No patient required pouch removal. CONCLUSION: Given the absence of postoperative mortality and a low overall complication rate, restorative proctocolectomy can safely be perofrmed in patients who fail rescue treatment with a dose of 2 mg/kg of cyclosporin for steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. Corollary evidence in this article hints but does not prove that the three-step procedure is safer than the two-step operation.
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02235571
Permalink
