For a study, researchers sought to present their protocol for managing pelvic sepsis in the context of re-doing IPAA and to compare the functional outcomes and quality of life following successful pelvic sepsis management to a control group without sepsis. In this study, a retrospective cohort design was used. This study was based on the re-do IPAA experience of a single academic practice group. Patients who got a second IPAA for ileal pouch failure between September 2016 and September 2020 met the study’s inclusion criteria. It was revealed how to treat pelvic sepsis. Between the groups with and without sepsis, functional results, limitations, and quality-of-life scores were compared. In their study, they enrolled 110 patients, of whom 25 (22.7%) developed pelvic sepsis. About 23 individuals had pelvic sepsis prior to ileostomy closure, while 2 patients had pelvic sepsis following ileostomy closure. About 6 pouch failures resulting from pelvic sepsis occurred throughout the study period. With a median follow-up of 20- months, their management was effective in 79% of the patients. Interventional radiology abscess drainage (n=7) was used to treat 7 cases, 4 antibiotics alone to treat 5 cases, mushroom catheter placement (n=1) to treat 1 case, and endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure (n=1) to treat 1 case. Between the groups with and without pelvic sepsis, the average number of bowel movements, urgency, incontinence, use of pads, and seepage were comparable (P>0.05). The Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores, lifestyle changes, and satisfaction with the surgery’s results were all similar (P>0.05). Low study power and a short follow-up period were 2 factors that limit this investigation. Following an IPAA revision, pelvic sepsis was frequent. The abscess/location sinus and size determine how it should be managed. Their management technique had a high pouch salvage rate when found early.
Pelvic Sepsis Development in Patients Undergoing Re-Do IPAA
