PURPOSE: Small bowel obstruction (SBO) remains a common complication after pelvic or abdominal surgery. However, the risk factors for SBO in ulcerative colitis (UC) surgery are not well known. The aim of the present study was to clarify the risk factors associated with SBO after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) with a loop ileostomy for patients with UC. METHODS: The medical records of 96 patients who underwent IPAA for UC between 1999 and 2011 were reviewed. SBO was confirmed based on the presence of clinical symptoms and radiographic findings. The patients were divided into 2 groups: the SBO group and the non-SBO group. We also analyzed the relationship between SBO and computed tomography (CT) scan image parameters. RESULTS: The study included 49 male and 47 female patients. The median age was 35.5 years (range, 14–72 years). We performed a 2- or 3-stage procedure as a total proctocolectomy and IPAA for patients with UC. SBO in the pretakedown of the loop ileostomy after IPAA occurred in 22 patients (22.9%). Moreover, surgical intervention for SBO was required for 11 patients. In brief, closure of the loop ileostomy was performed earlier than expected. A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the 2-stage procedure (odds ratio, 2.850; 95% confidence interval, 1.009–8.044; P = 0.048) was a significant independent risk factor associated with SBO. CT scan image parameters were not significant risk factors of SBO. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that a 2-stage procedure is a significant risk factor associated with SBO after IPAA in patients with UC.
Colitis, Ulcerative* ; Female ; Humans ; Ileostomy* ; Logistic Models ; Male ; Medical Records ; Risk Factors ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Ulcer*

The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery launched the clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, and ampullary cancer) in 2007, then published the 2nd version in 2014. In this 3rd version, clinical questions (CQs) were proposed on six topics. The recommendation, grade for recommendation, and statement for each CQ were discussed and finalized by an evidence-based approach. Recommendations were graded as grade 1 (strong) or grade 2 (weak) according to the concepts of the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation system. The 31 CQs covered the six topics: (1) prophylactic treatment, (2) diagnosis, (3) biliary drainage, (4) surgical treatment, (5) chemotherapy, and (6) radiation therapy. In the 31 CQs, 14 recommendations were rated strong and 14 recommendations weak. The remaining three CQs had no recommendation. Each CQ includes a statement of how the recommendations were graded. This latest guideline provides recommendations for important clinical aspects based on evidence. Future collaboration with the cancer registry will be key for assessing the guidelines and establishing new evidence.