Evolution of laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: impact of enhanced recovery program, medication changes, and staged approaches on outcomes

Background: Although laparoscopic Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) has become the gold standard in restorative proctocolectomy, surgical techniques have experienced minimal changes. In contrast, substantial shifts in perioperative care, marked by the enhanced recovery program (ERP), modifications in steroid use, and a shift to a 3-staged approach, have taken center stage. Methods: Data extracted from our prospective IPAA database focused on the first 100 laparoscopic IPAA cases (historic group) and the latest 100 cases (modern group), aiming to measure the effect of these evolutions on postoperative outcomes. Results: The historic IPAA group had more 2-staged procedures (92% proctocolectomy), whereas the modern group had a higher number of 3-staged procedures (86% proctectomy) (P < .001). Compared with patients in the modern group, patients in the historic group were more likely to be on steroids (5% vs 67%, respectively; P < .001) or immunomodulators (0% vs 31%, respectively; P < .001) at surgery. Compared with the historic group, the modern group had a shorter operative time (335.5 ± 78.4 vs 233.8 ± 81.6, respectively; P < .001) and length of stay (LOS; 5.4 ± 3.1 vs 4.2 ± 1.6 days, respectively; P < .001). Compared with the modern group, the historic group exhibited a higher 30-day morbidity rate (20% vs 33%, respectively; P = .04) and an elevated 30-day readmission rate (9% vs 21%, respectively; P = .02). Preoperative steroids use increased complications (odds ratio [OR], 3.4; P = .01), whereas 3-staged IPAA reduced complications (OR, 0.3; P = .03). ERP was identified as a factor that predicted shorter stays. Conclusion: Although ERP effectively reduced the LOS in IPAA surgery, it failed to reduce complications. Conversely, adopting a 3-staged IPAA approach proved beneficial in reducing morbidity, whereas preoperative steroid use increased complications.