Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Commentaries and Educational Content: Clinical Practice Guidelines

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Ulcerative Colitis

Holubar, Stefan D. M.D.1; Lightner, Amy L. M.D.1; Poylin, Vitaliy M.D.2; Vogel, Jon D. M.D.3; Gaertner, Wolfgang M.D.4; Davis, Bradley M.D.5; Davis, Kurt G. M.D.6; Mahadevan, Uma M.D.7; Shah, Samir A. M.D.8; Kane, Sunanda V. M.D.9; Steele, Scott R. M.D., M.B.A.1; Paquette, Ian M. M.D.10; Feingold, Daniel L. M.D.11; Prepared on behalf of the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons

Author Information
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum: July 2021 - Volume 64 - Issue 7 - p 783-804
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002037

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) is dedicated to ensuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee is composed of society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines.

These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician considering all the circumstances presented by the individual patient.


Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an idiopathic chronic inflammatory condition that affects the mucosa lining the colon and rectum that, for unknown reasons, continues to increase in incidence with nearly 3.1 million people affected in the United States alone.1 Patients most often present in 2 general age categories, between about ages 15 and 30 or 55 and 65, with rectal bleeding, urgency, and/or tenesmus from proctitis.2,3 The degree of symptomatology is variable over a patient’s lifetime, and patients often exhibit a remitting and relapsing phenotype at various points during their course. Although patients can achieve mucosal healing by using an ever-expanding repertoire of immunoregulatory medications, approximately 15% to 20% of patients with UC still require colectomy for medically refractory disease and/or neoplasia of the colon or rectum.4–8

Regardless of the indication for surgical intervention, complete removal of all at-risk tissue (ie, the colon and the rectum) is considered curative for the intestinal manifestations of UC. Depending on the clinical scenario, operative strategies for patients with UC may include a total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy or ileoproctostomy or total proctocolectomy with a permanent end ileostomy, a continent ileostomy, or construction of an IPAA, all of which are increasingly performed using minimally invasive techniques.7–10 This guideline focuses on the surgical management of medically refractory UC and UC-associated colorectal neoplasia, key technical aspects of operative intervention, postoperative considerations specific to patients with UC, and emerging concepts in UC that warrant further exploration and consideration. Because the optimal management of patients with UC involves a multidisciplinary team approach, including colorectal surgeons, gastroenterologists, radiologists, pathologists, nutritionists, and enterostomal therapists, these guidelines should be viewed in that context and represent only a portion of the treatment paradigm utilized when caring for patients with UC.


This guideline was written as an update to the ASCRS Practice Parameters for the Surgical Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis published in 2014.11 Although bowel preparation, enhanced recovery pathways, ostomy care, and prevention of thromboembolic disease are relevant to the surgical management of patients with UC, these topics are addressed in other ASCRS clinical practice guidelines and are beyond the scope of this guideline.12–15 An organized search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Collected Reviews limited to the English language was performed between January 1, 1995 and December 18, 2020.11 The complete search strategy is listed in Supplemental Digital Content Keyword combinations included “ulcerative colitis,” “indeterminate colitis,” “inflammatory bowel disease,” “Crohn’s disease,” “surgery,” “colectomy,” “proctocolectomy,” “ileostomy,” “laparoscopic,” “robotic,” “Kock pouch,” “mucosectomy,” “ileoproctostomy,” and “ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.” Directed searches using embedded references from primary articles were performed in selected circumstances.

After removal of duplicate references, a total of 8661 unique journal titles were identified. A total of 1232 titles were selected for manuscript review with an emphasis placed on prospective trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines.16,17 Peer-reviewed observational studies and retrospective studies were included when higher-quality evidence was insufficient. Of the 1232 full-text manuscripts reviewed, 296 references were included in the final manuscript (Fig. 1). The final source material used was evaluated for methodological quality, the evidence base was examined, and a treatment guideline was formulated. The final grade of recommendation was designated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system (Table 1).18 When there was disagreement regarding the evidence base or treatment guideline, consensus from the committee chair, vice chair, and 2 assigned reviewers determined the outcome. Members of the ASCRS Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee worked in joint production of these guidelines from inception to final publication. Recommendations formulated by the subcommittee were reviewed by the entire Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee, selected members of the ASCRS Inflammatory Bowel Disease committee, and selected practicing gastroenterologists. Consideration was given to align recommendations with the 2020 ASCRS Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Crohn’s Disease because there was significant overlap in the evidence base supporting these 2 guidelines.19 The final guideline was approved by the ASCRS Executive Council and peer reviewed by Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. In general, each ASCRS Clinical Practice Guideline is updated every 5 years. No funding was received for preparing this guideline and the authors have declared no competing interests related this material. This guideline conforms to the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) checklist.

TABLE 1. - The GRADE System: grading recommendations
Description Benefit versus risk and burdens Methodologic quality of supporting evidence Implications
1A Strong recommendation, High-quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens or vice versa RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies Strong recommendation, can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation
1B Strong recommendation, Moderate-quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens or vice versa RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodologic flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies Strong recommendation, can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation
1C Strong recommendation, Low- or very-low-quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens or vice versa Observational studies or case series Strong recommendation but may change when higher-quality evidence becomes available
2A Weak recommendation, High-quality evidence Benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients’ or societal values
2B Weak recommendations, Moderate-quality evidence Benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodologic flaws, indirect, or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients’ or societal values
2C Weak recommendation, Low- or very-low-quality evidence Uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks, and burden; benefits, risk, and burden may be closely balanced Observational studies or case series Very weak recommendations; other alternatives may be equally reasonable
GRADE = Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RCT = randomized controlled trial.
Adapted from Guyatt G, Gutermen D, Baumann MH, et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an American College of Chest Physicians Task Force. Chest. 2006;129:174–181.18 Used with permission.

PRISMA literature search flow sheet.


  • 1. A multidisciplinary approach including early surgical consultation should be used to guide optimal care in hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe UC undergoing escalation of medical therapy. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C.

The goal for treating UC is to resolve symptoms and achieve mucosal healing, defined as the resolution of inflammatory changes on endoscopic evaluation. Determining the extent and severity of disease is critical to selecting appropriate medical management. The extent of disease should be characterized anatomically (eg, the Montreal classification designates proctitis as E1, left-sided colitis as E2, and extensive colitis as E3).20,21 Disease severity is commonly classified according to the Truelove and Witts criteria but may also be classified according to the Seo Index, Rachmilewitz Index, Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index, or the Mayo Score.22–28 The 2019 American College of Gastroenterology guidelines proposed using a modified and more comprehensive version of the Truelove and Witts criteria that incorporated inflammatory markers including fecal calprotectin and endoscopic disease assessment.1 When patients clinically deteriorate or have increased endoscopic disease severity, escalation of medical therapy may be needed, and utilizing a disease severity index allows for serial evaluations over time and can facilitate evolving treatment approaches. Outpatient management of UC in conjunction with gastroenterology is beyond the scope of this guideline but is reviewed in other guidelines.1,29

In the in-patient setting, it can be difficult to predict which patients should continue with escalation of medical therapy and which should undergo surgical intervention. Individualized assessment and decision making under these circumstances should take into account patient-specific preferences, previous medical therapy including exposure to monoclonal antibodies, and concomitant risk factors for requiring a total abdominal colectomy including age at diagnosis of less than 40 years, extensive colitis, severe endoscopic disease with spontaneous bleeding and deep ulcerations, previous hospitalization for colitis, elevated C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and low serum albumin.30–32

In hospitalized patients with a UC flare, intravenous methylprednisolone 40 to 60 mg daily is typically recommended as first-line therapy.1 In general, these patients should be continued on a diet, as tolerated, because bowel rest while on intravenous corticosteroids has shown no added benefit in 2 randomized, controlled trials,33,34 prophylaxis against thromboembolism should be initiated, and plain films should be obtained, as needed, to assess for toxic megacolon. Meanwhile, patients under these circumstances typically undergo endoscopy to assess disease severity and are tested for cytomegalovirus and Clostridioides difficile. Patients with UC receiving medical therapy in this setting are monitored for signs of a clinical response, including decreased stool frequency and hematochezia, a downward trend in serum C-reactive protein, and a general improvement in their overall condition.35,36 More recently, fecal calprotectin has been used to monitor disease activity and has gained acceptance as a surrogate for mucosal healing.1 If there is insufficient improvement in the 3 to 5 days after initiation of corticosteroids, intravenous infliximab at a dose of 5 to 10 mg/kg or intravenous cyclosporine is typically considered as “rescue therapy.”1 Both infliximab and cyclosporine have a mean response time of approximately 5 to 7 days in randomized, controlled trials; close observation during this initial 7-day treatment window is typically recommended with colectomy reserved for patients who do not respond appropriately or clinically worsen during this interval.27,35–38 A review of standard versus intensive infliximab dosing under these circumstances is beyond the scope of this guideline.

In patients whose condition plateaus after a period of initial improvement, the need and timing for colectomy may be difficult to judge. Second-line infliximab or cyclosporine therapy in corticosteroid nonresponders avoids colectomy in 60% to 80% of patients up to 3 months after the acute episode and in greater than 60% of patients up to 5 years after the acute episode; however, those who avoid a colectomy at their index admission have a high risk of requiring a future colectomy.37,39–43 In patients treated with a third-line “rescue” therapy (eg, cyclosporine for infliximab nonresponders or infliximab for cyclosporine nonresponders) colectomy-free rates may approach 70% at 3 months and 40% to 60% at 1 year after the acute episode.44,45 However, the potential risks of using a third-line therapy can be considerable; a systematic review documented that adverse events, serious infection, and death occurred in 23%, 7%, and 1% of patients treated with this approach.46 In particular, persistent colonic distention under these circumstances characterizes a subgroup of patients who typically respond poorly to further medical therapy and are at increased risk for developing toxic megacolon. Prolonged nonoperative care of these patients can exhaust their physiological reserve and risks increased morbidity including colonic perforation.45,47 Other biologics (eg, vedolizumab, ustekinumab) and the janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, tofacitinib, have not yet been adequately evaluated in acute, severe UC requiring hospitalization; however, small case series regarding tofacitinib and ustekinumab support their use under these circumstances.48,49

When escalating the medical care of hospitalized patients with UC, early surgical consultation should be considered to optimize patient education and position surgery as a relevant treatment option when there has been an insufficient response to the escalation of medical therapy. This approach also allows for the longitudinal surgical evaluation of a patient’s clinical course and ongoing discussion and coordination with the treating gastroenterology team. Consensus statements recommend surgical consultation for hospitalized patients with UC who do not show signs of improvement within 72 hours of initiating intravenous corticosteroids or rescue therapy, because early operative intervention has been associated with decreased postcolectomy complications.35,36,50–53 Additional considerations include early involvement of an enterostomal therapist to facilitate stoma education, establish perioperative ostomy care, appropriately mark the anticipated stoma location, and alleviate patients’ anxiety.45,54

  • 2. Patients with severe medically refractory UC, fulminant colitis, toxic megacolon, or colonic perforation should typically undergo total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C.

Acutely worsening patients are at risk for developing fulminant colitis or toxic megacolon. Fulminant colitis represents a severe form of acute colitis that may involve more than 10 bloody stools per day, bleeding, a blood transfusion requirement, an erythrocyte sedimentation rate >30 mm/h, fever, tachycardia, and abdominal pain and distension.36,55 Radiographic findings under these circumstances can include colonic dilation and a thick, edematous colon wall with thumb printing.36,56 Meanwhile, toxic megacolon, an extreme form of colitis, is usually associated with a thin colon wall and total or segmental colonic dilation (diameter ≥5.5 cm) without a mechanical obstruction but with systemic toxicity.57

In practice, in the setting of severe, medically refractory UC, fulminant colitis, or toxic megacolon, clinical deterioration and typical signs of impending or contained (ie, sealed) perforation or peritonitis may be masked by ongoing immunosuppressive medical therapy.58,59 In a retrospective study of 89 patients who have IBD with fulminant colitis (n = 72; 81%) and toxic colitis (n = 17; 19%) who required colectomy, 14 (16%) had a colon perforation identified either immediately before or during surgery, most often in the cecum or distal third of the transverse colon.55 Given that mortality rates increase with longer intervals between colonic perforation and surgical intervention, especially in the setting of multisystem organ failure, fulminant colitis or toxic megacolon should prompt urgent total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy.58,60–64 A proctectomy is usually avoided under these circumstances,65,66 and, given the concerns for developing a rectal stump dehiscence, a variety of maneuvers can be utilized, such as implanting the rectal stump in the subcutaneous tissues, creating a mucous fistula instead of a rectal stump, or decompressing the rectal stump transanally via a rectal tube.67

  • 3. A staged approach for an IPAA should typically be considered in patients being treated with high-dose corticosteroids or monoclonal antibodies. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C.

Although the efficacy of corticosteroids for the treatment of acute and refractory UC has been well established, preoperative exposure to corticosteroids is associated with adverse postoperative outcomes.28,68–71 Preoperative high-dose corticosteroids, defined as >20 mg of prednisone equivalents per day, are associated with significantly increased postoperative infectious complications, although the duration of high-dose corticosteroid use that predisposes to increased risk is not well defined.72,73 Recognizing this risk, patients maintained on high-dose corticosteroids should typically undergo total abdominal colectomy and end ileostomy as their initial stage rather than a total proctocolectomy with IPAA to reduce the risk of anastomotic leak and pelvic sepsis, the leading causes of pouch failure.74–77 After a staged total abdominal colectomy, proctectomy with IPAA should typically be delayed until corticosteroids have been weaned because of the increased risk of anastomotic leak and pelvic sepsis related to these medications.77

Meanwhile, immunomodulators (eg, 6-mercaptupurine, azathioprine, and methotrexate), originally used as monotherapy for maintenance of remission before the era of biologic therapy and now used in conjunction with biologics to reduce immunogenicity primarily associated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents, have not been associated with increased postoperative complications according to single-center series and systematic reviews.78–83 The decision to perform a proctocolectomy and IPAA in a staged fashion should not typically be influenced by immunomodulator exposure.

The relationship between monoclonal antibody therapy and adverse postoperative outcomes in the setting of UC remains controversial.82–89 Most studies show no significant association between the use of preoperative anti-TNF therapy and postoperative complications.86,87,90–97 However, the 2 largest, single-center series evaluating preoperative exposure to anti-TNF therapy at the time of IPAA showed significantly increased rates of anastomotic leak and pelvic sepsis with anti-TNF exposure.86,87 Similarly, the largest, relevant meta-analysis of patients with UC showed a significantly increased risk of both early complications after IPAA (OR, 4.12; 95% CI, 2.37–7.15) and late (postileostomy closure) complications (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.27–4.05) in patients exposed to anti-TNF therapy before undergoing IPAA.98 In addition, a large, retrospective review using data from an insurance claims database found significantly increased rates of postoperative complications following IPAA in the setting of preoperative exposure to anti-TNF therapy.99 However, in contrast, the largest prospective study to date (the PUCCINI trial presented at Digestive Disease Week, San Diego, CA, in 2019) did not show any association between monoclonal antibodies or their associated drug levels and adverse postoperative outcomes.100 Likewise, a prospective study of preoperative serum anti-TNF drug levels from 94 consecutive patients with UC found no association between increased serum drug levels and adverse outcomes after surgery.101

As with anti-TNF medications, the literature remains controversial regarding whether preoperative exposure to newer classes of monoclonal antibodies or small-molecule inhibitors influences postoperative outcomes. Two single-center, retrospective series reported no significant increases in post-IPAA complications after preoperative exposure to vedolizumab, but a multicenter, retrospective review including both patients with UC and with Crohn’s disease reported significantly increased rates of infectious complications after abdominal operations in patients exposed to vedolizumab compared with patients exposed to anti-TNF medication.97,102,103 Ustekinumab, an anti-interleukin approved for UC treatment in 2019, has not yet been studied with regard to postoperative outcomes in patients with UC. Tofacitinib, approved for UC treatment in 2018, has also not yet been evaluated regarding postoperative outcomes. Recognizing the ongoing controversy, it is possible that a staged approach to proctocolectomy and IPAA in the setting of monoclonal antibody therapy may mitigate the risk of postoperative pelvic sepsis, especially in patients with additional risk factors such as anemia, poor nutrition, >10% weight loss in the 6 months before the operation, or a BMI <18 kg/m2.104


  • 4. Patients with UC should undergo endoscopic surveillance at regular intervals. Chromoendoscopy or high-definition white-light endoscopy is typically recommended for optimal surveillance. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.

Compared with age-matched controls, patients with UC are at increased risk for developing colorectal cancer (CRC).105 Risk factors for CRC in patients with UC include younger age at the time of diagnosis of UC, longer duration of disease, increased extent of disease (pancolitis carries a greater risk than proctitis or left-sided disease), severity of disease and inflammation (quiescent disease carries a lower risk), a family history of CRC especially if diagnosed before the age of 50, and the presence of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC).106 However, recent reports suggest that the risk for developing CRC in the setting of UC has been decreasing over time.107 Previous reports suggested a 2%, 8%, and 18% cumulative risk of CRC 10, 20, and 30 years after the diagnosis of UC, whereas more recent meta-analyses report a cumulative risk of 1%, 3%, and 7%.108–110

Given the risk of neoplasia, surveillance colonoscopy for patients with UC is endorsed by multiple societies; however, controversy persists regarding the optimal timing for initiating screening and recommended surveillance intervals.111 Regardless of the extent of disease at initial diagnosis, patients should undergo a screening colonoscopy within 8 years of the onset of symptoms. The recommended intervals for subsequent surveillance endoscopic examinations are determined by individualized risk assessment and vary by different societies’ guidelines.112–114 Recognizing their significantly increased risk for neoplasia, patients with PSC should begin screening at the time of diagnosis and undergo surveillance annually. The European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization recommends that the highest-risk patients, those with PSC or a history of dysplasia or stricture, undergo annual colonoscopy, that intermediate-risk patients with extensive or long-standing colitis or a family history of CRC undergo colonoscopy every 2 to 3 years, and that low-risk patients utilize a 5-year interval. Surveillance colonoscopy should, ideally, be performed when the colonic disease is in remission.115 Meanwhile, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends that patients with PSC, active inflammation, a history of dysplasia or CRC in a first-degree relative, or an anatomic abnormality such as a stricture have annual surveillance colonoscopy and that average-risk patients undergo surveillance colonoscopy every 1 to 3 years.116,117 Of note, patients with UC who have had a colectomy but have a rectal stump left in situ are at risk of developing neoplasia and should undergo regular proctoscopic surveillance, as well.118–120

Surveillance colonoscopy for patients with UC, according to American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and American Gastroenterological Association guidelines, is typically recommended using high-definition white-light colonoscopy with nontargeted (ie, random) 4-quadrant biopsies (typically taken at 10-cm intervals with a total of ≥32 biopsies) or using chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies.112,113,117,121 Early studies suggested that chromoendoscopy was superior to standard white-light endoscopy for detecting adenomas with or without surrounding dysplasia and resulted in improved dysplasia detection with fewer overall biopsies.116,122–127 However, endoscopy with high-definition white-light platforms has demonstrated similar dysplasia detection during surveillance colonoscopy compared with chromoendoscopy under these circumstances.1,128,129 In addition, the infrastrucure required for widespread adoption of chromoendoscopy surveillance may be a barrier to implementation given the increased endoscopy time and associated expenses typically related to chromoendoscopy and the relatively limited technical expertise available among endoscopists in practice.130 For these reasons, high-definition white-light colonoscopy or chromoendoscopy can be used for surveillance examinations depending on availability and local expertise.

Meanwhile, because most dysplasia under these circumstances is visible with high-definition colonoscopy, performing surveillance with random biopsies has been called into question; the decision to perform targeted biopsies only or to also obtain random biopsies may be individualized based on risk factors (eg, PSC, previous dysplasia found on random biopsy).1 A prospective multicenter study of 1000 patients with IBD undergoing surveillance colonoscopy in France from 2009 to 2011 reported 94 patients with dysplasia. The yield of dysplasia found by random biopsies was 0.2% (68 of 31,865 biopsies), but only 12 of the 94 patients (13%) with dysplasia were diagnosed by random biopsies. Of note, dysplasia found by random biopsies was associated with a personal history of dysplasia, a colon with loss of compliance and folds, and PSC; therefore, this study recommended random biopsies during surveillance colonoscopies for patients with these risk factors.131 Finally, a recent randomized, controlled trial of 305 patients with IBD from a single center in Sweden undergoing surveillance colonoscopy with both random and targeted biopsies found that high-definition chromoendoscopy was superior to high-definition white-light endoscopy in terms of detecting neoplasia.132 In this study, colonoscopies with dye-spray chromoendoscopy took an average of 7 minutes longer than the white-light examinations.

  • 5. Patients with visible polypoid or nonpolypoid dysplasia that is completely excised endoscopically should undergo endoscopic surveillance. Patients with visible dysplasia not amenable to endoscopic excision, invisible dysplasia in the flat mucosa surrounding a visible dysplastic lesion, or colorectal adenocarcinoma should typically undergo total proctocolectomy with or without IPAA. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.

In patients with colitis, endoscopic biopsies may be classified as negative for dysplasia, indefinite for dysplasia, low-grade dysplasia (LGD), or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) based on histopathology assessment. In general, pathology determinations under these circumstances should be confirmed by a second appropriately trained pathologist because of high interobserver variability.112,133 Indefinite dysplasia is addressed in statement 6.

Regarding the grades of dysplasia, LGD and HGD are differentiated based on the distribution of nuclei within the cells of the mucosa; LGD is characterized by nuclei confined to the basal half of the cells, whereas HGD has nuclei located haphazardly throughout the mucosa.74,78 The terms dysplasia-associated lesion or mass and adenoma-like mass have been replaced with more simplified descriptors of visible or invisible lesions.134 Visible lesions are described morphologically by the Paris classification as polypoid (eg, pedunculated or sessile) or nonpolypoid (eg, slightly elevated, flat, or depressed) and borders of lesions are classified as distinct or indistinct.117 Retrospective studies indicate that 64% to 92% of colorectal dysplasia in patients with UC is visible.135–137 Other noteworthy descriptors include ulceration and features of potential submucosal invasion such as depression and failure to lift with submucosal injection that may be associated with the inability to resect a lesion endoscopically and raise the suspicion for cancer.138

The management of dysplasia in patients with UC depends on whether the dysplasia is invisible or visible and whether a visible lesion is completely excised endoscopically.113,117 Visible dysplastic lesions with LGD or HGD, in colitic or noncolitic mucosa, that are amenable to complete endoscopic resection (ie, dysplasia-free margins), without invisible dysplasia in the flat mucosa immediately adjacent to the polypectomy site or elsewhere in the colon, should be treated with endoscopic excision when appropriate expertise is available.113,139–141 En bloc removal is preferred over piecemeal polypectomy to allow for histological evaluation regarding the completeness of resection; this may require referral to a center experienced in advanced polypectomy techniques including endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Although the success of endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection in the setting of UC has only been demonstrated in small studies, and the long-term efficacy of these techniques with regard to preventing subsequent neoplasia or influencing the need for surgery is unclear, these advanced approaches may facilitate complete endoscopic excision with negative margins.142–144 At the time of endoscopic excision, depending on the circumstances, a tattoo can be placed adjacent to the polypectomy site to facilitate future surveillance, and biopsies should typically be obtained of the flat mucosa surrounding the site to evaluate for adjacent invisible dysplasia.112,145

The recommendation to pursue ongoing surveillance rather than total proctocolectomy for patients with UC who have had a visible dysplastic lesion excised endoscopically is based on the relatively low risk of developing cancer while undergoing surveillance under these circumstances.146 In studies reported after 2000, the incidence of HGD or cancer diagnosed at surveillance colonoscopy following the removal of a visible dysplastic lesion in patients with UC was 3% to 18% over surveillance periods of 3 to 7 years.136,137,147–149 In addition, a study of 30 patients with UC who underwent endoscopic excision of a visible dysplastic lesion reported that 48% had recurrent dysplasia, but none were found to have cancer with a mean 4.1 years of follow-up.140 However, once dysplasia is identified, patients are at a 10-fold increased risk of developing recurrent dysplasia.138,150 Thus, close endoscopic surveillance with biopsies taken at the prior excision site is recommended within 1 to 6 months and again at 12 months after removal of the index lesion.138,150 Treatment recommendations for patients with multifocal, visible, nonpolypoid dysplasia that is completely excised endoscopically warrant a multidisciplinary discussion because there is limited evidence to guide practice and the clinical scenarios are often heterogeneous.

For patients with visible dysplastic lesions not amenable to endoscopic excision, invisible dysplasia in the flat mucosa surrounding visible dysplasia, multifocal dysplastic lesions, or confluent inflammatory pseudopolyposis interfering with the ability to adequately perform surveillance colonoscopy, total proctocolectomy is typically recommended because of the associated increased risk of having or developing CRC.112,113,146,147 Patients with UC diagnosed with CRC should undergo staging and be discussed in a multidisciplinary team tumor board and are typically recommended to undergo total proctocolectomy. For patients undergoing total proctocolectomy under these circumstances, an oncological resection with appropriate lymph node harvest should be performed to allow for appropriate oncological staging. Patients with UC diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma who undergo neoadjuvant radiotherapy should be appropriately counseled that an IPAA in this setting may have worse functional outcomes; however, external beam radiation therapy is not an absolute contraindication to subsequent pouch formation.111 Further discussion regarding the management of colon cancer and rectal cancer is beyond the scope of these guidelines.

Although total proctocolectomy is most often recommended to remove all at-risk tissue, selected patients with an increased operative risk or poor functional status may benefit from a segmental colectomy depending on the degree and extent of colitis.151 In a retrospective study of 59 patients with UC with a median age of 73 years, 24 underwent a segmental colectomy (40% had active colitis at operation) and 35 underwent a total proctocolectomy (77% had active colitis at operation, p = 0.005) and, over a median follow-up period of 7 years, no patient undergoing segmental colectomy developed metachronous cancer.152 In another retrospective Swedish study of 51 patients with UC who underwent segmental colectomy (n = 22) or proctocolectomy (n = 29), none of the patients undergoing segmental colectomy developed metachronous CRC at a mean follow-up of 9.4 years, although 10 patients underwent subsequent proctocolectomy for medically refractory UC.153 Appropriate ongoing endoscopic surveillance of the retained colon and rectum is necessary when a segmental colectomy is performed in these highly selected patients.118–120

  • 6. Patients with visible indefinite dysplasia not amenable to endoscopic excision or invisible indefinite dysplasia should typically undergo medical treatment to achieve mucosal healing and be referred to an experienced endoscopist for repeat colonoscopy using high-definition colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy with targeted and repeat random biopsies within 3 to 12 months. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C.

The term “indefinite dysplasia” usually applies to situations where the pathologist cannot distinguish between dysplastic and nondysplastic atypia because of the presence of inflamed mucosa that can make histological interpretation difficult. When indefinite dysplasia is identified on nontargeted (ie, random) endoscopic biopsies, up to 28% of patients with UC will have dysplasia on subsequent colonoscopy.113 A retrospective study of 84 patients with IBD with mucosal biopsies indefinite for dysplasia (92% invisible) who underwent subsequent colonoscopy identified LGD in 13% of patients and HGD/CRC in 2% of patients over a median follow-up period of 28 months.154 In the setting of nontargeted biopsies indefinite for dysplasia, American Gastroenterological Association guidelines recommend medical optimization to promote mucosal healing followed by repeat endoscopic surveillance within 3 to 12 months using high-definition colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy.113 Patients with indefinite dysplasia who undergo medical therapy and do not achieve sufficient mucosal healing or who have persistent indefinite dysplasia despite mucosal healing warrant a multidisciplinary discussion, because there is limited evidence to guide practice and the clinical scenarios are often heterogeneous.

  • 7. Patients with invisible dysplasia should typically be referred to an experienced endoscopist for repeat endoscopy using high-definition colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy with targeted and repeat random biopsies within 3 to 6 months. Patients confirmed to have invisible multifocal, low-grade dysplasia or any invisible high-grade dysplasia should typically be considered for total proctocolectomy. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.

When nontargeted biopsies reveal LGD or HGD, patients with UC should typically undergo a high-definition colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy by an experienced endoscopist.1,155 Patients who undergo repeat nontargeted biopsies in this setting and are found to have no invisible dysplasia or unifocal, invisible LGD warrant a multidisciplinary discussion because there is limited evidence to guide practice and the clinical scenarios are often heterogeneous. If repeat nontargeted biopsies reveal multifocal LGD, total proctocolectomy is typically recommended, although the evidence supporting this is limited. A meta-analysis of 671 patients who have UC with LGD found synchronous CRC in 17% of patients and a 6.1% annual rate of dysplasia progression; risk factors for dysplasia progression included invisible dysplasia and multifocal LGD.146,156 The largest series of LGD, from the Dutch National Pathology Registry, identified 4284 patients with IBD (3064 with UC) with LGD between 1991 and 2010 and found that the cumulative incidence of subsequent advanced neoplasia was 3.6%, 8.5%, 14.4%, and 21.7% after 1, 5, 10, and 15 years. The median time between the diagnosis of LGD and having advanced neoplasia was 3.6 years. In this study, although there was no stratification based on visibility or focality of lesions, repeat colonoscopy demonstrating LGD was associated with an increased risk of progression to CRC.157 Further supporting the recommendation for colectomy under these circumstances, a single-center series of 172 patients who have UC with LGD followed for a median of 48 months revealed that 39% had advanced neoplasia at the time of colectomy.158 Meanwhile, in a retrospective review of 2130 patients with UC who underwent an abdominal colectomy or total proctocolectomy, of the 141 patients who had a precolectomy diagnosis of LGD, cancer was identified in only 3 patients (2%) at the time of resection, and of the 1801 patients without a preoperative diagnosis of dysplasia, only 62 patients (3%) were found to have dysplasia in their colectomy specimen.159

As with invisible LGD, the management recommendations for patients with invisible HGD are based on reported rates of developing cancer that are highly variable. Although some series report synchronous cancer in 42% to 67% of patients with invisible HGD, a study of 59 patients who had UC with HGD on preoperative colonoscopy revealed LGD, HGD, or cancer in 20 (34%), 3 (5%), and 1 (2%) patients at the time of proctocolectomy.159 Furthermore, in a 2019 multicenter, retrospective study of 28 patients with HGD only 4 patients (14%) developed colitis-associated cancer over a median follow-up of 15 years.135 Regardless of the varying rates of developing CRC, if invisible HGD is confirmed at repeat colonoscopy using high-definition colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy, total proctocolectomy is typically recommended.112,117,138,141 In practice, one should acknowledge that unaccounted variables including duration, severity, and extent of UC, concomitant PSC, as well as biopsy sampling error and interobserver variability among pathologists influence outcomes among patients who have UC with dysplasia. It is important to counsel patients about the potential risks and benefits of continued endoscopic surveillance versus total proctocolectomy in the setting of dysplasia.136,160

  • 8. Endoscopic surveillance should typically be performed after IPAA. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C.

Retained rectal mucosa near the anal transition zone (ATZ) following IPAA is at risk for developing dysplasia. A mucosectomy with handsewn anastomosis at the time of IPAA does not eliminate this concern because retained islands of at-risk rectal mucosa can persist following a mucosectomy.161–163 Although the risk of dysplasia in the rectal remnant/ATZ or ileal pouch is low, periodic endoscopic evaluation should typically be performed.161,164–166 Recommended surveillance intervals vary based on societal guidelines, but a history of neoplasia in the prior proctocolectomy specimen confers the greatest risk of subsequent dysplasia and warrants increased frequency of surveillance.113,121,138,167 Although examination intervals are not universally accepted, typically, pouchoscopy is performed 1 year after surgery and then every 3 to 5 years thereafter; for patients who had neoplasia at the time of their proctocolectomy, pouchoscopy every 1 to 3 years should be considered.168 Pouchoscopy is often performed using a more flexible scope (eg, an upper endoscope) to facilitate retroflexion within the pouch.169 Treatment of neoplasia diagnosed under these circumstances warrants a multidisciplinary discussion because there is limited evidence to guide practice and the clinical scenarios are often heterogeneous.


  • 9. For patients with UC undergoing restorative total proctocolectomy with IPAA, a 2-stage, 3-stage, or modified 2-stage approach is preferred for most patients. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.

The number of stages involved in pouch surgery is influenced by patient factors and surgeon preference.69,170 Two-stage, 3-stage, and modified 2-stage approaches to IPAA are the most common pouch operations performed.171 Despite the popularity of monoclonal antibody therapy and the concern regarding IPAA formation in the setting of these medications, the rates of performing a 2-stage versus 3-stage IPAA have not changed significantly in the past decade; nearly 3 quarters of IPAAs are performed with a 2-stage approach.172,173 The modified 2-stage IPAA (total abdominal colectomy and end ileostomy followed by completion proctectomy and IPAA without a diverting loop ileostomy), increasingly utilized in recent years, is not associated with increased rates of anastomotic leak, pelvic sepsis, or pouch failure compared with the conventional 2-stage IPAA (total proctocolectomy with IPAA and diverting ileostomy followed by ileostomy closure), but this technique has not been directly compared with the 3-stage approach.74,174–179

Meanwhile, a retrospective series of 144 patients with medically refractory UC who underwent a 2-stage IPAA (n = 116) or 3-stage IPAA (n = 28) over an 11-year period suggested an overuse of the 3-stage approach.172 In this study, perioperative complications were significantly influenced by surgeon experience (high-volume surgeons were defined as having performed ≥50 IPAAs) and not by emergent operative status or preoperative exposure to corticosteroids or anti-TNF therapy. The authors reported that a 2-stage IPAA was not associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leak or pouch failure.172 Another series of 212 patients with IPAA compared a 2-stage (n = 157) with a 3-stage (n = 55) IPAA and found no differences in postoperative complications, including rates of anastomotic leak, pouchitis, or pouch failure. Of note, there were no differences in the preoperative exposure to corticosteroids or monoclonal antibodies between the 2 groups.173 On the other hand, 2 multicenter studies found improved postoperative outcomes with a 3-stage approach.180–183 In practice, it is important to individualize treatment in these cases and consider disease severity, preoperative exposure to immunomodulators, comorbidities, the presence of anemia, and nutritional status in addition to intraoperative factors such as tension across the pouch anastomosis and surgeon preference.159 Although the preferred staged approach remains controversial, with the ever-expanding armamentarium of immunomodulatory agents used to treat these patients, a 3-stage IPAA should typically be considered to minimize postoperative morbidity.180,181

Regardless of the particular staged approach utilized, laparoscopic or robotic approaches for IPAA are preferred when expertise is available due to reported improved short-term outcomes, including shorter length of hospital stay, reduced intraoperative blood loss, decreased wound infection rates, improved cosmesis, and equivalent long-term functional outcomes and overall pouch failure rates.184–190 In terms of other minimally invasive techniques, the recently introduced transanal approach to restorative proctectomy has been shown to be safe and feasible in early studies and has demonstrated long-term functional outcomes and quality-of-life scores equivalent to conventional approaches in 2 multicenter comparative series.191–194

  • 10. Total proctocolectomy with IPAA, end ileostomy, or continent ileostomy are acceptable options for patients with UC undergoing elective surgery. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.

Total proctocolectomy with IPAA has become the most commonly performed operative intervention for patients with UC and is associated with an acceptable morbidity rate (19%–27%), an extremely low mortality rate (<0.5%), and a quality of life that approaches that of the healthy population.195–203 When appropriate, a minimally invasive approach should typically be considered because of the associated reduced length of hospital stay and improved short-term outcomes, cosmesis, and fertility.185,187,204–214 Pouch surgery often utilizes a J-type configuration because of its ease of construction and relatively predictable emptying. J pouches are associated with fewer evacuation difficulties compared with S-type pouches (especially an S pouch with a longer spout), but an S-pouch construction may be particularly useful when additional length is needed for a tension-free IPAA.215,216 In terms of technique, a stapled anastomosis is typically preferred over a mucosectomy with handsewn anastomosis, because the data suggest improved bowel function and symptom-specific quality-of-life metrics with this approach.217–219

Although restorative procedures have been popularized, an IPAA may not be suitable for all patients. Advanced age, significant medical comorbidities, underlying bowel dysfunction, and obesity should be considered to optimize IPAA functional outcomes. Appropriately selected older patients without fecal incontinence may safely undergo IPAA because chronological age alone does not significantly affect short-term postoperative outcomes or long-term functional outcomes; however, medical comorbidities and preexisting impaired function should be considered when counseling these patients regarding pouch surgery.220–225 Of note, older and aging patients with pouch may experience worsening daytime and nighttime bowel frequency and increased rates of fecal incontinence because the sphincter complex weakens with age.220,222,226–229

Obesity, in the setting of pouch surgery, is associated with increased operative times, blood loss, and difficulty in achieving sufficient mesenteric length for a tension-free IPAA; however, obesity is not associated with impaired functional outcomes including incontinence, frequency of bowel movements, and pad usage.230–233 Preoperative weight loss can potentially improve outcomes and performing a 3-stage IPAA to allow time for weight loss and mesenteric lengthening (which typically occurs after creating an end ileostomy) may be a particularly useful strategy in these patients.234–236

Total proctocolectomy with an end ileostomy, an alternative to IPAA,7,8 is considered a safe, effective, and curative operation with quality-of-life outcomes equivalent to IPAA.237 This nonrestorative approach may be the preferred operative strategy in patients with fecal incontinence, inadequate access to a bathroom, anorectal disease, barriers to surveillance, or limited physiological reserve secondary to comorbid conditions who may be at risk of pouch failure or poor pouch function.8,238

A continent ileostomy (eg, Kock pouch) is a potential option for highly selected patients in whom an IPAA is contraindicated or has failed or in those who otherwise prefer a permanent ileostomy over a restorative procedure. However, although continence is achieved in most patients, these reservoirs have high rates of dysfunction and of needing operative revision or excision.239–244 In a French series of 49 patients undergoing continent ileostomy with a mean follow-up of 20.5 months, 35% experienced early postoperative complications and 45% developed late complications requiring 50 reoperations.245 Another retrospective series of 330 patients reported 10- and 20-year continent ileostomy survival rates of 87% and 77%. In this study, at a median 11 years of follow-up, patients had, on average, 3.7 complications and 2.9 revisions and had a median revision-free interval of 14 months.246

In terms of another potential option for patients who have UC with a failed pouch, redo pouch surgery may be a viable alternative in certain centers. It is important to counsel patients regarding realistic expectations of redo pouch surgery, because these operations can be complicated by higher rates of pelvic sepsis and pouch failure and increased stool frequency and urgency compared with primary pouch surgery.247–249 Further discussion regarding redo pouch surgery is beyond the scope of these guidelines.

  • 11. Total abdominal colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis may be considered in selected patients who have UC with relative rectal sparing. Grade of recommendation: Weak recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 2B.

Total abdominal colectomy with an initial or staged ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) is associated with improved functional outcomes and higher quality-adjusted life-years compared with IPAA and avoids a pelvic dissection which may preserve fertility in women.250–252 Appropriately selected patients for this technique should have a relatively spared, healthy, and compliant rectum. Patients undergoing IRA should be counseled regarding the potential need for future medical therapy to address proctitis, recognizing that at 5, 10, and 20 years post-IRA, 10%, 24% to 27%, and 40% of these patients undergo completion proctectomy for medically refractory disease.253–255 In addition, surveillance endoscopy of the retained rectum is necessary because dysplasia and adenocarcinoma in the retained rectum occur in 7%, 12% to 14%, and 24% and 0% to 3%, 2% to 7%, and 9% of patients at 10, 20, and 25 years. Prolonged duration of UC or a personal history of colorectal neoplasia or PSC significantly increases the risk for developing neoplasia in this setting.253–255 For patients with IRA who develop medically refractory proctitis or rectal neoplasia, conversion from an IRA to IPAA results in pouch retention rates similar to primary IPAA surgery with overall pouch survival of 94% and 92% for primary and secondary pouches.256

  • 12. Patients with UC undergoing proctectomy should be counseled regarding possible effects on fertility, pregnancy, sexual function, and urinary function. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.

Decreased fertility rates following proctectomy with or without IPAA are thought to be related to postoperative pelvic adhesions related to the pelvic dissection that may cause fallopian tube occlusion.257–260 Given that total abdominal colectomy with an ileorectal anastomosis, and thus no pelvic dissection, is not usually associated with decreased fertility supports this proposed underlying mechanism of infertility.207,251 Meta-analyses of patients with UC post-IPAA report increased infertility rates of 26% to 63% compared to 12% to 20% in nonoperative controls.207,257,261 The use of a minimally invasive approach may help reduce infertility rates in this setting because multicenter data demonstrate that a minimally invasive approach to IPAA is associated with significantly lower rates of infertility and reduced time to conceive compared with open IPAA.204–207 Regardless of the variable natural conception rates following laparoscopic IPAA (31%–73%) or open IPAA (>50%), there are no significant differences in the cumulative live birth rates after in vitro fertilization between patients with UC (with or without IPAA) and patients without UC.262,263 However, according to a large retrospective review of patients with UC in the Danish National Patient Registry, patients with a failed IPAA had significantly lower in vitro fertilization success rates compared with all other patients with UC.264

Pregnancy after IPAA is not associated with an increased rate of maternal or fetal complications including low fetal birth weight, prolonged duration of labor, delivery-related complications, or need for an unplanned cesarean delivery.257,265,266 Although pouch dysfunction has been reported during the third trimester of pregnancy, this appears to be transient with function returning to pregestational baseline independent of the mode of delivery.257,266 Meanwhile, the purported benefit of cesarean delivery to preserve function compared with a vaginal delivery remains controversial, but long-term comparative functional studies by colorectal surgeons suggest that vaginal delivery may compromise post-IPAA function.267–269 When patients who have a pouch plan a cesarean delivery, it is recommended to consider having surgical expertise available to assist, if necessary.270

In terms of other quality-of-life outcomes, early studies reported worse sexual function after IPAA, but more recent literature shows no significant effects on sexual desire, ability to achieve orgasm, or sexual satisfaction.214,265,271–273 One questionnaire-based study even reported an overall improvement in quality of sexual life likely because of improved overall health status after IPAA.274 Men with IBD, regardless of surgery, have a higher risk of erectile dysfunction than men without IBD, but IPAA surgery does not appear to significantly impair their sexual function; 10 years after IPAA, abnormal ejaculation has been reported in only 3% of men.214,273–275 In women, studies report worse sexual function after IPAA with increased vaginal dryness and dyspareunia, but affected quality-of-life scores improve within 12 months of IPAA, suggesting that these findings are transient.271,272 The use of intramesorectal proctectomy, in an effort to avoid pelvic nerve injury, and laparoscopy does not confer an advantage regarding postoperative sexual function.214,272

Similarly, urinary function does not appear to be significantly affected in the immediate postoperative period following IPAA.257,265 However, rates of urinary urgency, frequency, and incontinence may increase over time in women after IPAA.257,265

  • 13. Pouchitis is common after IPAA performed in the setting of UC and is classified according to its responsiveness to antibiotics. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.

Pouchitis is a nonspecific inflammation of the ileal mucosa of the pouch associated with diarrhea, tenesmus, pelvic pain and cramping, blood in the stool, and, occasionally, flu-like symptoms. Pouchitis occurs in up to 40% of patients with UC post-IPAA and is more common in patients exposed to anti-TNF medications pre-IPAA and in patients with indeterminate colitis or PSC.276–278 Before treatment, the diagnosis of pouchitis should typically be confirmed by pouchoscopy with biopsies. Endoscopic findings of confluent, erythematous, friable mucosa of the pouch body and histology demonstrating inflammation with a normal afferent limb and ATZ are consistent with a diagnosis of pouchitis.

The most common form of pouchitis is acute, antibiotic-responsive pouchitis that typically responds within 24 hours to oral ciprofloxacin and metronidazole or other alternative antibiotics. Antibiotics are usually prescribed for 10 to 14 days under these circumstances.279 Chronic pouchitis is less common and is classified as either antibiotic dependent or antibiotic refractory.280 Antibiotic-dependent pouchitis may be treated with a single agent continuously or with rotating antibiotics.276 Antibiotic-refractory pouchitis typically necessitates an evaluation for underlying Crohn’s disease or other inflammatory disorders of the pouch and referral to gastroenterology for management and treatment (eg, monoclonal antibody therapy). For antibiotic-refractory pouchitis, adalimumab did not demonstrate efficacy when studied in a randomized, controlled trial but infliximab, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab have shown limited efficacy in retrospective analyses and may be considered under these circumstances.279,281–285 Patients who have recurrent, medically refractory pouchitis may require intestinal diversion or pouch excision to manage their symptoms.286


  • 14. Appendectomy may decrease the need for proctocolectomy related to medically refractory disease. Grade of recommendation: Weak recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 2B.

The idea that appendectomy may be beneficial in patients with medically refractory UC has been evaluated in a few studies. In a prospective study of 30 patients with medically refractory UC who were referred for proctocolectomy, but who instead underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, 9 patients (30%) had a sustained clinical response and 5 patients (17%) experienced endoscopic remission at 12 months. In this study, the degree of appendiceal inflammation was significantly associated with clinical and endoscopic response.287 In another prospective, multicenter study of 28 patients with medically refractory UC who underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy rather than proctocolectomy, 13 patients (46%) had a clinical response, 5 patients (18%) had endoscopic remission, and 9 patients (32%) required a colectomy or new experimental medical therapy within 12 months of appendectomy.288

  • 15. A “rescue” diverting loop ileostomy can be considered in the setting of worsening, acute, severe UC to potentially avoid an emergent total abdominal colectomy. Grade of recommendation: Weak recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 2C.

In the 1980s and 1990s, studies regarding creating a diverting loop ileostomy and blowhole colostomy (eg, Turnbull procedure) rather than performing a colectomy to treat severe or fulminant colitis in pregnancy reported high mortality rates of up to 70%.289,290 However, a more recent retrospective study done in the era of monoclonal antibody therapy found that a “rescue” diverting loop ileostomy for acute, severe, medically refractory colitis was a potential alternative to colectomy in patients who were severely immunocompromised or malnourished. This study of 33 patients with IBD demonstrated that a “rescue” ileostomy did not increase the rate of colon salvage in patients with UC and Crohn’s colitis, but was able to convert an emergent colectomy to an elective colectomy, thereby potentially improving outcomes.291

  • 16. Extended postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis should be considered in patients with UC exposed to tofacitinib. Grade of recommendation: Weak recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 2C.

Tofacitinib was approved in 2018 by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of moderate to severe UC following the OCTAVE 1 and 2 phase III randomized, controlled trials which demonstrated that study patients had improved induction and maintenance of endoscopic remission compared with controls.292 With a safety profile similar to anti-TNF therapy, the most commonly reported adverse events in the phase III clinical trials were nasopharyngitis, arthralgia, and headache, and less than 5% of patients experienced a serious, nonopportunistic infection.293,294 However, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a black box warning in July 2019 detailing increased risks of venous thromboembolism and death from pulmonary embolism related to tofacitinib (10 mg twice daily) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.295 Although a retrospective analysis evaluating tofacitinib in the setting of UC did not show a higher rate of thromboembolic events than placebo, patients with UC undergoing major abdominopelvic surgery are already at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism.13,296 Thus, patients with UC exposed to tofacitinib preoperatively may benefit from extended postoperative thromboprophylaxis.


1. Rubin DT, Ananthakrishnan AN, Siegel CA, Sauer BG, Long MD. ACG Clinical Guideline: ulcerative colitis in adults. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114:384–413.
2. Hou JK, Kramer JR, Richardson P, Mei M, El-Serag HB. The incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease among U.S. veterans: a national cohort study. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19:1059–1064.
3. Loftus CG, Loftus EV Jr, Harmsen WS, et al. Update on the incidence and prevalence of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1940-2000. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2007;13:254–261.
4. Holubar SD, Pendlimari R, Loftus EV Jr, et al. Drivers of cost after surgical and medical therapy for chronic ulcerative colitis: a nested case-cohort study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:1258–1265.
5. Sands BE. Fulminant colitis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:2157–2159.
6. Cima RR. Timing and indications for colectomy in chronic ulcerative colitis: surgical consideration. Dig Dis. 2010;28:501–507.
7. Holubar SD, Larson DW, Dozois EJ, Pattana-Arun J, Pemberton JH, Cima RR. Minimally invasive subtotal colectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for fulminant ulcerative colitis: a reasonable approach? Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:187–192.
8. Holubar SD, Privitera A, Cima RR, Dozois EJ, Pemberton JH, Larson DW. Minimally invasive total proctocolectomy with Brooke ileostomy for ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2009;15:1337–1342.
9. Goligher JC, Hoffman DC, de Dombal FT. Surgical treatment of severe attacks of ulcerative colitis, with special reference to the advantages of early operation. Br Med J. 1970;4:703–706.
10. Hultén L. Proctocolectomy and ileostomy to pouch surgery for ulcerative colitis. World J Surg. 1998;22:335–341.
11. Ross H, Steele SR, Varma M, et al.; Standards Practice Task Force of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Practice parameters for the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:5–22.
12. Carmichael JC, Keller DS, Baldini G, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60:761–784.
13. Fleming F, Gaertner W, Ternent CA, et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the prevention of venous thromboembolic disease in colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61:14–20.
14. Hendren S, Hammond K, Glasgow SC, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for ostomy surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58:375–387.
15. Migaly J, Bafford AC, Francone TD, et al.; Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of bowel preparation in elective colon and rectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2019;62:3–8.
16. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210.
17. Olofsson H, Brolund A, Hellberg C, et al. Can abstract screening workload be reduced using text mining? User experiences of the tool Rayyan. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8:275–280.
18. Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an american college of chest physicians task force. Chest. 2006;129:174–181.
19. Lightner AL, Vogel JD, Carmichael JC, et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the surgical management of Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63:1028–1052.
20. Satsangi J, Silverberg MS, Vermeire S, Colombel JF. The Montreal classification of inflammatory bowel disease: controversies, consensus, and implications. Gut. 2006;55:749–753.
21. Silverberg MS, Satsangi J, Ahmad T, et al. Toward an integrated clinical, molecular and serological classification of inflammatory bowel disease: report of a Working Party of the 2005 Montreal World Congress of Gastroenterology. Can J Gastroenterol. 2005;19suppl A5A–36A.
22. de Jong MJ, Huibregtse R, Masclee AAM, Jonkers DMAE, Pierik MJ. Patient-reported outcome measures for use in clinical trials and clinical practice in inflammatory bowel diseases: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16:648–663.e3.
23. Rachmilewitz D. Coated mesalazine (5-aminosalicylic acid) versus sulphasalazine in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis: a randomised trial. BMJ. 1989;298:82–86.
24. Schroeder KW, Tremaine WJ, Ilstrup DM. Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. A randomized study. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1625–1629.
25. Seo M, Okada M, Yao T, Ueki M, Arima S, Okumura M. An index of disease activity in patients with ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 1992;87:971–976.
26. Walmsley RS, Ayres RC, Pounder RE, Allan RN. A simple clinical colitis activity index. Gut. 1998;43:29–32.
27. D’Haens G, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. A review of activity indices and efficacy end points for clinical trials of medical therapy in adults with ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:763–786.
28. Truelove SC, Witts LJ. Cortisone in ulcerative colitis; final report on a therapeutic trial. Br Med J. 1955;2:1041–1048.
29. Feuerstein JD, Isaacs KL, Schneider Y, Siddique SM, Falck-Ytter Y, Singh S; AGA Institute Clinical Guidelines Committee. AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2020;158:1450–1461.
30. Monstad I, Hovde O, Solberg IC, Moum BA. Clinical course and prognosis in ulcerative colitis: results from population-based and observational studies. Ann Gastroenterol. 2014;27:95–104.
31. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Panés J, Sandborn WJ, et al. Defining disease severity in inflammatory bowel diseases: current and future directions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:348–354.e17.
32. Solberg IC, Lygren I, Jahnsen J, et al.; IBSEN Study Group. Clinical course during the first 10 years of ulcerative colitis: results from a population-based inception cohort (IBSEN Study). Scand J Gastroenterol. 2009;44:431–440.
33. Dickinson RJ, Ashton MG, Axon AT, Smith RC, Yeung CK, Hill GL. Controlled trial of intravenous hyperalimentation and total bowel rest as an adjunct to the routine therapy of acute colitis. Gastroenterology. 1980;79:1199–1204.
34. McIntyre PB, Powell-Tuck J, Wood SR, et al. Controlled trial of bowel rest in the treatment of severe acute colitis. Gut. 1986;27:481–485.
35. Øresland T, Bemelman WA, Sampietro GM, et al.; European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO). European evidence based consensus on surgery for ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis. 2015;9:4–25.
36. Bitton A, Buie D, Enns R, et al.; Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Severe Ulcerative Colitis Consensus Group. Treatment of hospitalized adult patients with severe ulcerative colitis: Toronto consensus statements. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:179–194; author reply 195.
37. Järnerot G, Hertervig E, Friis-Liby I, et al. Infliximab as rescue therapy in severe to moderately severe ulcerative colitis: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:1805–1811.
38. Lichtiger S, Present DH, Kornbluth A, et al. Cyclosporine in severe ulcerative colitis refractory to steroid therapy. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1841–1845.
39. Bojic D, Radojicic Z, Nedeljkovic-Protic M, Al-Ali M, Jewell DP, Travis SP. Long-term outcome after admission for acute severe ulcerative colitis in Oxford: the 1992-1993 cohort. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2009;15:823–828.
40. Dinesen LC, Walsh AJ, Protic MN, et al. The pattern and outcome of acute severe colitis. J Crohns Colitis. 2010;4:431–437.
41. Moskovitz DN, Van Assche G, Maenhout B, et al. Incidence of colectomy during long-term follow-up after cyclosporine-induced remission of severe ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:760–765.
42. Laharie D, Bourreille A, Branche J, et al.; Groupe d’Etudes Thérapeutiques des Affections Inflammatoires Digestives. Ciclosporin versus infliximab in patients with severe ulcerative colitis refractory to intravenous steroids: a parallel, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;380:1909–1915.
43. Narula N, Marshall JK, Colombel JF, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis: infliximab or cyclosporine as rescue therapy in patients with severe ulcerative colitis refractory to steroids. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:477–491.
44. Feuerstein JD, Akbari M, Tapper EB, Cheifetz AS. Systematic review and meta-analysis of third-line salvage therapy with infliximab or cyclosporine in severe ulcerative colitis. Ann Gastroenterol. 2016;29:341–347.
45. Person B, Ifargan R, Lachter J, Duek SD, Kluger Y, Assalia A. The impact of preoperative stoma site marking on the incidence of complications, quality of life, and patient’s independence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:783–787.
46. Narula N, Fine M, Colombel JF, Marshall JK, Reinisch W. Systematic review: sequential rescue therapy in severe ulcerative colitis: do the benefits outweigh the risks? Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21:1683–1694.
47. Latella G, Vernia P, Viscido A, et al. GI distension in severe ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1169–1175.
48. Honap S, Pavlidis P, Ray S, et al. Tofacitinib in acute severe ulcerative colitis-a real-world tertiary center experience. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2020;26:e147–e149.
49. Ochsenkühn T, Tillack C, Szokodi D, Janelidze S, Schnitzler F. Clinical outcomes with ustekinumab as rescue treatment in therapy-refractory or therapy-intolerant ulcerative colitis. United European Gastroenterol J. 2020;8:91–98.
50. Kimura H, Kunisaki R, Tatsumi K, Koganei K, Sugita A, Endo I. Prolonged medical therapy increases the risk of surgical complications in patients with severe ulcerative colitis. Dig Surg. 2016;33:182–189.
51. Coakley BA, Telem D, Nguyen S, Dallas K, Divino CM. Prolonged preoperative hospitalization correlates with worse outcomes after colectomy for acute fulminant ulcerative colitis. Surgery. 2013;153:242–248.
52. Bartels SA, Gardenbroek TJ, Ubbink DT, Buskens CJ, Tanis PJ, Bemelman WA. Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open colectomy with end ileostomy for non-toxic colitis. Br J Surg. 2013;100:726–733.
53. Randall J, Singh B, Warren BF, Travis SP, Mortensen NJ, George BD. Delayed surgery for acute severe colitis is associated with increased risk of postoperative complications. Br J Surg. 2010;97:404–409.
54. Bass EM, Del Pino A, Tan A, Pearl RK, Orsay CP, Abcarian H. Does preoperative stoma marking and education by the enterostomal therapist affect outcome? Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40:440–442.
55. Stewart D, Chao A, Kodner I, Birnbaum E, Fleshman J, Dietz D. Subtotal colectomy for toxic and fulminant colitis in the era of immunosuppressive therapy. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11:184–190.
56. Jones JH, Chapman M. Definition of megacolon in colitis. Gut. 1969;10:562–564.
57. Sheth SG, LaMont JT. Toxic megacolon. Lancet. 1998;351:509–513.
58. Greenstein AJ, Barth JA, Sachar DB, Aufses AH Jr. Free colonic perforation without dilatation in ulcerative colitis. Am J Surg. 1986;152:272–275.
59. Roy MA. Inflammatory bowel disease. Surg Clin North Am. 1997;77:1419–1431.
60. Greenstein AJ, Sachar DB, Gibas A, et al. Outcome of toxic dilatation in ulcerative and Crohn’s colitis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1985;7:137–143.
61. Heppell J, Farkouh E, Dubé S, Péloquin A, Morgan S, Bernard D. Toxic megacolon. An analysis of 70 cases. Dis Colon Rectum. 1986;29:789–792.
62. Berg DF, Bahadursingh AM, Kaminski DL, Longo WE. Acute surgical emergencies in inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Surg. 2002;184:45–51.
63. St Peter SD, Abbas MA, Kelly KA. The spectrum of pneumatosis intestinalis. Arch Surg. 2003;138:68–75.
64. Caprilli R, Latella G, Vernia P, Frieri G. Multiple organ dysfunction in ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:1258–1262.
65. McKenna NP, Bews KA, Mathis KL, Lightner AL, Habermann EB. Surgery during admission for an ulcerative colitis flare: should pouch formation be considered? J Surg Res. 2019;239:216–223.
66. McKenna NP, Mathis KL, Pemberton JH, Lightner AL. The impact of age at time of ileal pouch anal anastomosis on short and long-term outcomes in adults. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018;24:1857–1865.
67. Mege D, Stellingwerf M, Germain A, et al. Management of rectal stump during laparoscopic subtotal colectomy for IBD: a comparative cohort study from six referral centres. J Crohn’s Colitis. 2020;14:1214–1221.
68. Truelove SC, Witts LJ. Cortisone in ulcerative colitis; preliminary report on a therapeutic trial. Br Med J. 1954;2:375–378.
69. Subramanian V, Saxena S, Kang JY, Pollok RC. Preoperative steroid use and risk of postoperative complications in patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing abdominal surgery. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:2373–2381.
70. Ordás I, Domènech E, Mañosa M, et al.; ENEIDA registry of GETECCU. Post-operative morbidity and mortality of a cohort of steroid refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis: Nationwide multicenter study of the GETECCU ENEIDA Registry. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113:1009–1016.
71. Llaó J, Naves JE, Ruiz-Cerulla A, et al. Improved outcome of acute severe ulcerative colitis while using early predictors of corticosteroid failure and rescue therapies. Dig Liver Dis. 2016;48:608–612.
72. Balachandran R, Tøttrup A. Safety of proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis under elective and non-elective circumstances: preoperative corticosteroid treatment worsens outcome. Dig Surg. 2015;32:251–257.
73. Khazraei H, Bananzadeh A, Hosseini SV. Early outcome of patient with ulcerative colitis who received high dose of steroid and underwent two staged total proctocolectomy. Adv Biomed Res. 2018;7:11.
74. Kiely JM, Fazio VW, Remzi FH, Shen B, Kiran RP. Pelvic sepsis after IPAA adversely affects function of the pouch and quality of life. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:387–392.
75. MacRae HM, McLeod RS, Cohen Z, O’Connor BI, Ton EN. Risk factors for pelvic pouch failure. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40:257–262.
76. Ziv Y, Church JM, Fazio VW, King TM, Lavery IC. Effect of systemic steroids on ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39:504–508.
77. Ritter KA, Burke JP, Stocchi L, et al. Postoperative steroid taper is associated with pelvic sepsis after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2019;25:1383–1389.
78. Eriksson C, Rundquist S, Cao Y, Montgomery S, Halfvarson J. Impact of thiopurines on the natural history and surgical outcome of ulcerative colitis: a cohort study. Gut. 2019;68:623–632.
79. Mahadevan U, Loftus EV Jr, Tremaine WJ, et al. Azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine before colectomy for ulcerative colitis is not associated with increased postoperative complications. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2002;8:311–316.
80. Afzali A, Park CJ, Zhu K, et al. Preoperative use of methotrexate and the risk of early postoperative complications in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016;22:1887–1895.
81. Subramanian V, Pollok RC, Kang JY, Kumar D. Systematic review of postoperative complications in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with immunomodulators. Br J Surg. 2006;93:793–799.
82. Williet N, Pillot C, Oussalah A, et al. Incidence of and impact of medications on colectomy in newly diagnosed ulcerative colitis in the era of biologics. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2012;18:1641–1646.
83. Pillai N, Dusheiko M, Burnand B, Pittet V. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies comparing conventional, biological and surgical interventions for inflammatory bowel disease. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0185500.
84. Costa J, Magro F, Caldeira D, Alarcão J, Sousa R, Vaz-Carneiro A. Infliximab reduces hospitalizations and surgery interventions in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19:2098–2110.
85. Moore SE, McGrail KM, Peterson S, et al. Infliximab in ulcerative colitis: the impact of preoperative treatment on rates of colectomy and prescribing practices in the province of British Columbia, Canada. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:83–90.
86. Mor IJ, Vogel JD, da Luz Moreira A, Shen B, Hammel J, Remzi FH. Infliximab in ulcerative colitis is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications after restorative proctocolectomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:1202–1207.
87. Selvasekar CR, Cima RR, Larson DW, et al. Effect of infliximab on short-term complications in patients undergoing operation for chronic ulcerative colitis. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:956–962.
88. Geltzeiler CB, Lu KC, Diggs BS, et al. Initial surgical management of ulcerative colitis in the biologic era. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:1358–1363.
89. Abelson JS, Michelassi F, Mao J, Sedrakyan A, Yeo H. Higher surgical morbidity for ulcerative colitis patients in the era of biologics. Ann Surg. 2018;268:311–317.
90. Coquet-Reinier B, Berdah SV, Grimaud JC, et al. Preoperative infliximab treatment and postoperative complications after laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1866–1871.
91. Krane MK, Allaix ME, Zoccali M, et al. Preoperative infliximab therapy does not increase morbidity and mortality after laparoscopic resection for inflammatory bowel disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:449–457.
92. Nørgård BM, Nielsen J, Qvist N, Gradel KO, de Muckadell OB, Kjeldsen J. Pre-operative use of anti-TNF-α agents and the risk of post-operative complications in patients with ulcerative colitis - a nationwide cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35:1301–1309.
93. Bregnbak D, Mortensen C, Bendtsen F. Infliximab and complications after colectomy in patients with ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis. 2012;6:281–286.
94. Ferrante M, D’Hoore A, Vermeire S, et al. Corticosteroids but not infliximab increase short-term postoperative infectious complications in patients with ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2009;15:1062–1070.
95. Gainsbury ML, Chu DI, Howard LA, et al. Preoperative infliximab is not associated with an increased risk of short-term postoperative complications after restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:397–403.
96. Kunitake H, Hodin R, Shellito PC, Sands BE, Korzenik J, Bordeianou L. Perioperative treatment with infliximab in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis is not associated with an increased rate of postoperative complications. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:1730–1736.
97. Nørgård BM, Nielsen J, Qvist N, Gradel KO, de Muckadell OB, Kjeldsen J. Pre-operative use of anti-TNF-α agents and the risk of post-operative complications in patients with Crohn’s disease–a nationwide cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;37:214–224.
98. Selvaggi F, Pellino G, Canonico S, Sciaudone G. Effect of preoperative biologic drugs on complications and function after restorative proctocolectomy with primary ileal pouch formation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21:79–92.
99. Kulaylat AS, Kulaylat AN, Schaefer EW, et al. Association of preoperative anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy with adverse postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing abdominal surgery for ulcerative colitis. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:e171538.
100. Cohen B, Fleshner P, Kane S, et al. 415a: anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy is not associated with post-operative infection: results from prospective cohort of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease patients undergoing surgery to identify risk factors for postoperative infection I (Puccini)Gastroenterology. 2019;156.
101. Lau C, Dubinsky M, Melmed G, et al. The impact of preoperative serum anti-TNFα therapy levels on early postoperative outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease surgery. Ann Surg. 2015;261:487–496.
102. Lightner AL, Mathis KL, Tse CS, et al. Postoperative outcomes in vedolizumab-treated patients undergoing major abdominal operations for inflammatory bowel disease: retrospective multicenter cohort study. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018;24:871–876.
103. Lightner AL, McKenna NP, Moncrief S, Pemberton JH, Raffals LE, Mathis KL. Surgical outcomes in vedolizumab-treated patients with ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017;23:2197–2201.
104. Madbouly KM, Senagore AJ, Remzi FH, Delaney CP, Waters J, Fazio VW. Perioperative blood transfusions increase infectious complications after ileoanal pouch procedures (IPAA). Int J Colorectal Dis. 2006;21:807–813.
105. Lakatos L, Mester G, Erdelyi Z, et al. Risk factors for ulcerative colitis-associated colorectal cancer in a Hungarian cohort of patients with ulcerative colitis: results of a population-based study. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2006;12:205–211.
106. Jess T, Loftus EV Jr, Velayos FS, et al. Incidence and prognosis of colorectal dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based study from Olmsted County, Minnesota. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2006;12:669–676.
107. Loftus EV Jr. Epidemiology and risk factors for colorectal dysplasia and cancer in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2006;35:517–531.
108. Lutgens MW, van Oijen MG, van der Heijden GJ, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD, Oldenburg B. Declining risk of colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19:789–799.
109. Eaden JA, Abrams KR, Mayberry JF. The risk of colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis. Gut. 2001;48:526–535.
110. Ekbom A, Helmick C, Zack M, Adami HO. Ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer. A population-based study. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:1228–1233.
111. Lightner AL, Spinelli A, McKenna NP, Hallemeier CL, Fleshner P. Does external beam radiation therapy to the pelvis portend worse ileal pouch outcomes? An international multi-institution collaborative study. Colorectal Dis. 2019;21:219–225.
112. Annese V, Daperno M, Rutter MD, et al.; European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation. European evidence based consensus for endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2013;7:982–1018.
113. Farraye FA, Odze RD, Eaden J, Itzkowitz SH. AGA technical review on the diagnosis and management of colorectal neoplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:746–74, 774.e1.
114. Clarke WT, Feuerstein JD. Colorectal cancer surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease: practice guidelines and recent developments. World J Gastroenterol. 2019;25:4148–4157.
115. Magro F, Gionchetti P, Eliakim R, et al.; European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation [ECCO]. Third European evidence-based consensus on diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis. part 1: definitions, diagnosis, extra-intestinal manifestations, pregnancy, cancer surveillance, surgery, and ileo-anal pouch disorders. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11:649–670.
116. Laine L, Kaltenbach T, Barkun A, McQuaid KR, Subramanian V, Soetikno R; SCENIC Guideline Development Panel. SCENIC international consensus statement on surveillance and management of dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2015;148:639–651.e28.
117. Laine L, Kaltenbach T, Barkun A, McQuaid KR, Subramanian V, Soetikno R; SCENIC Guideline Development Panel. SCENIC international consensus statement on surveillance and management of dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:489–501.e26.
118. Lutgens MW, van Oijen MG, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD, Broekman MM, Oldenburg B; Dutch Initiative on Crohn and Colitis. Risk factors for rectal stump cancer in inflammatory bowel disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:191–196.
119. Munie S, Hyman N, Osler T. Fate of the rectal stump after subtotal colectomy for ulcerative colitis in the era of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:408–411.
120. Ten Hove JR, Bogaerts JMK, Bak MTJ, et al. Malignant and nonmalignant complications of the rectal stump in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2019;25:377–384.
121. Cairns SR, Scholefield JH, Steele RJ, et al.; British Society of Gastroenterology; Association of Coloproctology for Great Britain and Ireland. Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in moderate and high risk groups (update from 2002). Gut. 2010;59:666–689.
122. Feuerstein JD, Rakowsky S, Sattler L, et al. Meta-analysis of dye-based chromoendoscopy compared with standard- and high-definition white-light endoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease at increased risk of colon cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;90:186–195.e1.
123. Marion JF, Waye JD, Israel Y, et al.; Chromoendoscopy Study Group at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Chromoendoscopy is more effective than standard colonoscopy in detecting dysplasia during long-term surveillance of patients with colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:713–719.
124. Marion JF, Waye JD, Present DH, et al.; Chromoendoscopy Study Group at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Chromoendoscopy-targeted biopsies are superior to standard colonoscopic surveillance for detecting dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease patients: a prospective endoscopic trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:2342–2349.
125. Rutter MD, Saunders BP, Schofield G, Forbes A, Price AB, Talbot IC. Pancolonic indigo carmine dye spraying for the detection of dysplasia in ulcerative colitis. Gut. 2004;53:256–260.
126. Rutter MD, Saunders BP, Wilkinson KH, Kamm MA, Williams CB, Forbes A. Most dysplasia in ulcerative colitis is visible at colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:334–339.
127. Kiesslich R, Goetz M, Lammersdorf K, et al. Chromoscopy-guided endomicroscopy increases the diagnostic yield of intraepithelial neoplasia in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:874–882.
128. Iacucci M, Kaplan GG, Panaccione R, et al. A randomized trial comparing high definition colonoscopy alone with high definition dye spraying and electronic virtual chromoendoscopy for detection of colonic neoplastic lesions during IBD surveillance colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113:225–234.
129. Bisschops R, Bessissow T, Joseph JA, et al. Chromoendoscopy versus narrow band imaging in UC: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2018;67:1087–1094.
130. Gallinger ZR, Rumman A, Murthy SK, Nguyen GC. Perspectives on endoscopic surveillance of dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease: a survey of academic gastroenterologists. Endosc Int Open. 2017;5:E974–E979.
131. Moussata D, Allez M, Cazals-Hatem D, et al.; the GETAID. Are random biopsies still useful for the detection of neoplasia in patients with IBD undergoing surveillance colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy? Gut. 2018;67:616–624.
132. Alexandersson B, Hamad Y, Andreasson A, et al. High-definition chromoendoscopy superior to high-definition white-light endoscopy in surveillance of inflammatory bowel diseases in a randomized trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:2101–2107.
133. Itzkowitz SH, Present DH; Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America Colon Cancer in IBD Study Group. Consensus conference: colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2005;11:314–321.
134. Chiu K, Riddell RH, Schaeffer DF. DALM, rest in peace: a pathologist’s perspective on dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease in the post-DALM era. Mod Pathol. 2018;31:1180–1190.
135. Cremer A, Demetter P, De Vos M, et al.; Belgian Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research and Development (BIRD) Group. Risk of development of more-advanced lesions in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases and dysplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:1528–1536.e5.
136. Goldstone R, Itzkowitz S, Harpaz N, Ullman T. Progression of low-grade dysplasia in ulcerative colitis: effect of colonic location. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:1087–1093.
137. Navaneethan U, Jegadeesan R, Gutierrez NG, et al. Progression of low-grade dysplasia to advanced neoplasia based on the location and morphology of dysplasia in ulcerative colitis patients with extensive colitis under colonoscopic surveillance. J Crohns Colitis. 2013;7:e684–e691.
138. Shergill AK, Lightdale JR, Bruining DH, et al. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee; The role of endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:1101–1121 e1101–1113.
139. Friedman S, Rubin PH, Bodian C, Harpaz N, Present DH. Screening and surveillance colonoscopy in chronic Crohn’s colitis: results of a surveillance program spanning 25 years. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6:993–998.
140. Rubin PH, Friedman S, Harpaz N, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy in chronic colitis: conservative management after endoscopic resection of dysplastic polyps. Gastroenterology. 1999;117:1295–1300.
141. Gomollón F, Dignass A, Annese V, et al.; ECCO. 3rd European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease 2016: part 1: diagnosis and medical management. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11:3–25.
142. Gulati S, Emmanuel A, Burt M, Dubois P, Hayee B, Haji A. Outcomes of endoscopic resections of large laterally spreading colorectal lesions in inflammatory bowel disease: a single United Kingdom center experience. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018;24:1196–1203.
143. Kinoshita S, Uraoka T, Nishizawa T, et al. The role of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with ulcerative colitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:1079–1084.
144. Kochhar G, Steele S, Sanaka M, Gorgun E. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for flat colonic polyps in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, a single-center experience. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018;24:e14–e15.
145. Shergill AK, Farraye FA. Toward a consensus on endoscopic surveillance of patients with colonic inflammatory bowel disease. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2014;24:469–481.
146. Fumery M, Dulai PS, Gupta S, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of colorectal cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis with low-grade dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15:665–674.e5.
147. Kisiel JB, Loftus EV Jr, Harmsen WS, Zinsmeister AR, Sandborn WJ. Outcome of sporadic adenomas and adenoma-like dysplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing polypectomy. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2012;18:226–235.
148. Odze RD, Farraye FA, Hecht JL, Hornick JL. Long-term follow-up after polypectomy treatment for adenoma-like dysplastic lesions in ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:534–541.
149. van Schaik FD, Mooiweer E, van der Have M, et al.; Dutch Initiative on Crohn Colitis. Adenomas in patients with inflammatory bowel disease are associated with an increased risk of advanced neoplasia. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19:342–349.
150. Wanders LK, Dekker E, Pullens B, Bassett P, Travis SP, East JE. Cancer risk after resection of polypoid dysplasia in patients with longstanding ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:756–764.
151. Krugliak Cleveland N, Ollech JE, Colman RJ, et al. Efficacy and follow-up of segmental or subtotal colectomy in patients with colitis-associated neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17:205–206.
152. Khan N, Cole E, Shah Y, Paulson EC. Segmental resection is a safe oncological alternative to total proctocolectomy in elderly patients with ulcerative colitis and malignancy. Colorectal Dis. 2017;19:1108–1116.
153. Lindberg J, Stenling R, Palmqvist R, Rutegård J. Surgery for neoplastic changes in ulcerative colitis–can limited resection be justified? Outcome for patients who underwent limited surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:551–556.
154. Choi WT, Rabinovitch PS, Wang D, Westerhoff M. Outcome of “indefinite for dysplasia” in inflammatory bowel disease: correlation with DNA flow cytometry and other risk factors of colorectal cancer. Hum Pathol. 2015;46:939–947.
155. Deepak P, Hanson GJ, Fletcher JG, et al. Incremental diagnostic yield of chromoendoscopy and outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease patients with a history of colorectal dysplasia on white-light endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:1005–1012.
156. Fumery M, Pineton de Chambrun G, Stefanescu C, et al. Detection of dysplasia or cancer in 3.5% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease and colonic strictures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:1770–1775.
157. de Jong ME, Kanne H, Nissen LHC, Drenth JPH, Derikx LAAP, Hoentjen F. Increased risk of high-grade dysplasia and colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease patients with recurrent low-grade dysplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;91:1334–1342.e1.
158. Choi CH, Ignjatovic-Wilson A, Askari A, et al. Low-grade dysplasia in ulcerative colitis: risk factors for developing high-grade dysplasia or colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:1461–1471.
159. Murphy J, Kalkbrenner KA, Pemberton JH, et al. Dysplasia in ulcerative colitis as a predictor of unsuspected synchronous colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:993–998.
160. Venkatesh PG, Jegadeesan R, Gutierrez NG, Sanaka MR, Navaneethan U. Natural history of low grade dysplasia in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis. 2013;7:968–973.
161. Kariv R, Remzi FH, Lian L, et al. Preoperative colorectal neoplasia increases risk for pouch neoplasia in patients with restorative proctocolectomy. Gastroenterology. 2010;139:806–12, 812.e1.
162. Lavery IC, Sirimarco MT, Ziv Y, Fazio VW. Anal canal inflammation after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. The need for treatment. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38:803–806.
163. Remzi FH, Fazio VW, Delaney CP, et al. Dysplasia of the anal transitional zone after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: results of prospective evaluation after a minimum of ten years. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:6–13.
164. Samaan MA, Forsyth K, Segal JP, et al. Current practices in ileal pouch surveillance for patients with ulcerative colitis: a multinational, retrospective cohort study. J Crohns Colitis. 2019;13:735–743.
165. Derikx LAAP, Nissen LHC, Smits LJT, Shen B, Hoentjen F. Risk of neoplasia after colectomy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:798–806.e20.
166. Derikx LA, Kievit W, Drenth JP, et al.; Dutch Initiative on Crohn and Colitis. Prior colorectal neoplasia is associated with increased risk of ileoanal pouch neoplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2014;146:119–28.e1.
167. Annese V, Beaugerie L, Egan L, et al.; ECCO. European evidence-based consensus: inflammatory bowel disease and malignancies. J Crohns Colitis. 2015;9:945–965.
168. Lightner AL, Vaidya P, Vogler S, et al. Surveillance pouchoscopy for dysplasia: Cleveland Clinic Ileoanal Pouch Anastomosis Database. Br J Surg. 2020;107:1826–1831.
169. Shen B. Pouchitis: what every gastroenterologist needs to know. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:1538–1549.
170. Gorfine SR, Gelernt IM, Bauer JJ, Harris MT, Kreel I. Restorative proctocolectomy without diverting ileostomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38:188–194.
171. Bikhchandani J, Polites SF, Wagie AE, Habermann EB, Cima RR. National trends of 3- versus 2-stage restorative proctocolectomy for chronic ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58:199–204.
172. Hicks CW, Hodin RA, Bordeianou L. Possible overuse of 3-stage procedures for active ulcerative colitis. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:658–664.
173. Lee GC, Deery SE, Kunitake H, et al. 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. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019;34:491–499.
174. Samples J, Evans K, Chaumont N, Strassle P, Sadiq T, Koruda M. Variant two-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: an innovative and effective alternative to standard resection in ulcerative colitis. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224:557–563.
175. Swenson BR, Hollenbeak CS, Poritz LS, Koltun WA. Modified two-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: equivalent outcomes with less resource utilization. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:256–261.
176. Zittan E, Wong-Chong N, Ma GW, McLeod RS, Silverberg MS, Cohen Z. Modified two-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis results in lower rate of anastomotic leak compared with traditional two-stage surgery for ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10:766–772.
177. Chessin DB, Gorfine SR, Bub DS, Royston A, Wong D, Bauer JJ. Septic complications after restorative proctocolectomy do not impair functional outcome: long-term follow-up from a specialty center. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:1312–1317.
178. Widmar M, Munger JA, Mui A, et al. Diverted versus undiverted restorative proctocolectomy for chronic ulcerative colitis: an analysis of long-term outcomes after pouch leak short title: outcomes after pouch leak. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019;34:691–697.
179. Lavryk OA, Hull TL, Duraes LC, et al. Outcomes of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis without primary diverting loop ileostomy if postoperative sepsis develops. Tech Coloproctol. 2018;22:37–44.
180. Mège D, Figueiredo MN, Manceau G, Maggiori L, Bouhnik Y, Panis Y. Three-stage laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is the best approach for high-risk patients with inflammatory bowel disease: an analysis of 185 consecutive patients. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10:898–904.
181. Sahami S, Bartels SA, D’Hoore A, et al. A multicentre evaluation of risk factors for anastomotic leakage after restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10:773–778.
182. Nicholls RJ, Holt SD, Lubowski DZ. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir. Comparison of two-stage vs. three-stage procedures and analysis of factors that might affect outcome. Dis Colon Rectum. 1989;32:323–326.
183. Penna C, Daude F, Parc R, et al. Previous subtotal colectomy with ileostomy and sigmoidostomy improves the morbidity and early functional results after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36:343–348.
184. Baek SJ, Baik SH, Kim CW, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for intestinal Behcet’s disease: a comparative study with open surgery. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:99–105.
185. Lavryk OA, Stocchi L, Ashburn JH, et al. Case-matched comparison of long-term functional and quality of life outcomes following laparoscopic versus open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. World J Surg. 2018;42:3746–3754.
186. Lightner AL, Grass F, McKenna NP, et al. Short-term postoperative outcomes following robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis are equivalent. Tech Coloproctol. 2019;23:259–266.
187. Sampietro GM, Colombo F, Frontali A, et al. Totally laparoscopic, multi-stage, restorative proctocolectomy for inflammatory bowel diseases. A prospective study on safety, efficacy and long-term results. Dig Liver Dis. 2018;50:1283–1291.
188. Schiessling S, Leowardi C, Kienle P, et al. Laparoscopic versus conventional ileoanal pouch procedure in patients undergoing elective restorative proctocolectomy (LapConPouch Trial)–a randomized controlled trial. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2013;398:807–816.
189. Singh P, Bhangu A, Nicholls RJ, Tekkis P. A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open restorative proctocolectomy. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15:e340–e351.
190. Tilney HS, Lovegrove RE, Heriot AG, et al. Comparison of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic vs open approaches to ileal pouch surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2007;22:531–542.
191. Chandrasinghe P, Carvello M, Wasmann K, et al. Transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis has comparable long-term functional outcomes to transabdominal approach: a multicentre comparative study. J Crohns Colitis. 2020;14:726–733.
192. de Buck van Overstraeten A, Mark-Christensen A, Wasmann KA, et al. Transanal versus transabdominal minimally invasive (completion) proctectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in ulcerative colitis: a comparative study. Ann Surg. 2017;266:878–883.
193. Leo CA, Samaranayake S, Perry-Woodford ZL, et al. Initial experience of restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis by transanal total mesorectal rectal excision and single-incision abdominal laparoscopic surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2016;18:1162–1166.
194. Zaghiyan K, Warusavitarne J, Spinelli A, Chandrasinghe P, Di Candido F, Fleshner P. Technical variations and feasibility of transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and inflammatory bowel disease unclassified across continents. Tech Coloproctol. 2018;22:867–873.
195. Fazio VW, Ziv Y, Church JM, et al. Ileal pouch-anal anastomoses complications and function in 1005 patients. Ann Surg. 1995;222:120–127.
196. Ferrante M, Declerck S, De Hertogh G, et al. Outcome after proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2008;14:20–28.
197. Araki Y, Ishibashi N, Ogata Y, Shirouzu K, Isomoto H. The usefulness of restorative laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy for ulcerative colitis. Kurume Med J. 2001;48:99–103.
198. Ky AJ, Sonoda T, Milsom JW. One-stage laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: an alternative to the conventional approach? Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:207–210.
199. Hasegawa H, Watanabe M, Baba H, Nishibori H, Kitajima M. Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy for patients with ulcerative colitis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2002;12:403–406.
200. Pace DE, Seshadri PA, Chiasson PM, Poulin EC, Schlachta CM, Mamazza J. Early experience with laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2002;12:337–341.
201. Maartense S, Dunker MS, Slors JF, Gouma DJ, Bemelman WA. Restorative proctectomy after emergency laparoscopic colectomy for ulcerative colitis: a case-matched study. Colorectal Dis. 2004;6:254–257.
202. Kienle P, Z’graggen K, Schmidt J, Benner A, Weitz J, Büchler MW. Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg. 2005;92:88–93.
203. Ahmed Ali U, Keus F, Heikens JT, et al. Open versus laparoscopic (assisted) ileo pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 20091CD006267.
204. Bartels SA, D’Hoore A, Cuesta MA, Bensdorp AJ, Lucas C, Bemelman WA. Significantly increased pregnancy rates after laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: a cross-sectional study. Ann Surg. 2012;256:1045–1048.
205. Beyer-Berjot L, Maggiori L, Birnbaum D, Lefevre JH, Berdah S, Panis Y. A total laparoscopic approach reduces the infertility rate after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a 2-center study. Ann Surg. 2013;258:275–282.
206. Gorgun E, Cengiz TB, Aytac E, et al. Does laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis reduce infertility compared with open approach? Surgery. 2019;166:670–677.
207. Rajaratnam SG, Eglinton TW, Hider P, Fearnhead NS. Impact of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis on female fertility: meta-analysis and systematic review. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:1365–1374.
208. Hahnloser D, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG, Larson DR, Crownhart BS, Dozois RR. The effect of ageing on function and quality of life in ileal pouch patients: a single cohort experience of 409 patients with chronic ulcerative colitis. Ann Surg. 2004;240:615–621.
209. McIntyre PB, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG, Beart RW, Dozois RR. Comparing functional results one year and ten years after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994;37:303–307.
210. Leowardi C, Hinz U, Tariverdian M, et al. Long-term outcome 10 years or more after restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with ulcerative colitis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2010;395:49–56.
211. Boller AM, Larson DW. Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:3–7.
212. Larson DW, Dozois EJ, Piotrowicz K, Cima RR, Wolff BG, Young-Fadok TM. Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: functional outcome in a case-matched series. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:1845–1850.
213. Tsuruta M, Hasegawa H, Ishii Y, et al. Hand-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009;19:52–56.
214. Larson DW, Davies MM, Dozois EJ, et al. Sexual function, body image, and quality of life after laparoscopic and open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:392–396.
215. Nicholls RJ, Pezim ME. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: a comparison of three reservoir designs. Br J Surg. 1985;72:470–474.
216. Smith L, Friend WG, Medwell SJ. The superior mesenteric artery. The critical factor in the pouch pull-through procedure. Dis Colon Rectum. 1984;27:741–744.
217. Al-Sukhni W, McLeod RS, MacRae H, O’Connor B, Huang H, Cohen Z. Oncologic outcome in patients with ulcerative colitis associated with dyplasia or cancer who underwent stapled or handsewn ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:1495–1500.
218. Kirat HT, Remzi FH, Kiran RP, Fazio VW. Comparison of outcomes after hand-sewn versus stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in 3,109 patients. Surgery. 2009;146:723–9; discussion 729.
219. Selvaggi F, Pellino G, Canonico S, Sciaudone G. Systematic review of cuff and pouch cancer in patients with ileal pelvic pouch for ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20:1296–1308.
220. Colombo F, Sahami S, de Buck Van Overstraeten A, et al. Restorative proctocolectomy in elderly IBD patients: a multicentre comparative study on safety and efficacy. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11:671–679.
221. Shung DL, Abraham B, Sellin J, Hou JK. Medical and surgical complications of inflammatory bowel disease in the elderly: a systematic review. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60:1132–1140.
222. Delaney CP, Dadvand B, Remzi FH, Church JM, Fazio VW. Functional outcome, quality of life, and complications after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in selected septuagenarians. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:890–894.
223. Page MJ, Poritz LS, Kunselman SJ, Koltun WA. Factors affecting surgical risk in elderly patients with inflammatory bowel disease. J Gastrointest Surg. 2002;6:606–613.
224. Ramage L, Qiu S, Georgiou P, Tekkis P, Tan E. Functional outcomes following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) in older patients: a systematic review. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31:481–492.
225. Delaney CP, Fazio VW, Remzi FH, et al. Prospective, age-related analysis of surgical results, functional outcome, and quality of life after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Ann Surg. 2003;238:221–228.
226. Pellino G, Sciaudone G, Candilio G, et al. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is safe and effective in selected very elderly patients suffering from ulcerative colitis. Int J Surg. 2014;12suppl 2S56–S59.
227. Ho KS, Chang CC, Baig MK, et al. Ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis is feasible for septuagenarians. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:235–238.
228. Menees SB, Almario CV, Spiegel BMR, Chey WD. Prevalence of and factors associated with fecal incontinence: results from a population-based survey. Gastroenterology. 2018;154:1672–1681.e3.
229. Lightner AL, Mathis KL, Dozois EJ, et al. Results at up to 30 years after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017;23:781–790.
230. McKenna NP, Mathis KL, Khasawneh MA, et al. Obese patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: short-and long-term surgical outcomes. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017;23:2142–2146.
231. Klos CL, Safar B, Jamal N, et al. Obesity increases risk for pouch-related complications following restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:573–579.
232. Kiran RP, Remzi FH, Fazio VW, et al. Complications and functional results after ileoanal pouch formation in obese patients. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:668–674.
233. McKenna NP, Mathis KL, Khasawneh M, et al. Thirty-day hospital readmission after restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis at a high-volume center. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21:1859–1864.
234. Wu XR, Kirat HT, Xhaja X, Hammel JP, Kiran RP, Church JM. The impact of mesenteric tension on pouch outcome and quality of life in patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy. Colorectal Dis. 2014;16:986–994.
235. Maruthachalam K, Kumar R, Hainsworth P. Parking the pouch: pouch salvage after anastomotic leak following restorative proctocolectomy. Report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:1724–1726.
236. Martel P, Majery N, Savigny B, Sezeur A, Gallot D, Malafosse M. Mesenteric lengthening in ileoanal pouch anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: is high division of the superior mesenteric pedicle a safe procedure? Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41:862–866.
237. Murphy PB, Khot Z, Vogt KN, Ott M, Dubois L. Quality of life after total proctocolectomy with ileostomy or IPAA: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58:899–908.
238. Jimmo B, Hyman NH. Is ileal pouch-anal anastomosis really the procedure of choice for patients with ulcerative colitis? Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41:41–45.
239. Lepistö AH, Järvinen HJ. Durability of Kock continent ileostomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:925–928.
240. Wasmuth HH, Svinsås M, Tranø G, et al. Surgical load and long-term outcome for patients with Kock continent ileostomy. Colorectal Dis. 2007;9:713–717.
241. Mullen P, Behrens D, Chalmers T, et al. Barnett continent intestinal reservoir. Multicenter experience with an alternative to the Brooke ileostomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38:573–582.
242. Aytac E, Dietz DW, Ashburn J, Remzi FH. Long-term outcomes after continent ileostomy creation in patients with Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60:508–513.
243. Aytac E, Ashburn J, Dietz DW. Is there still a role for continent ileostomy in the surgical treatment of inflammatory bowel disease? Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20:2519–2525.
244. Lian L, Fazio VW, Remzi FH, Shen B, Dietz D, Kiran RP. Outcomes for patients undergoing continent ileostomy after a failed ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:1409–1414.
245. Parc Y, Klouche M, Bennis M, Lefèvre JH, Shields C, Tiret E. The continent ileostomy: an alternative to end ileostomy? Short and long-term results of a single institution series. Dig Liver Dis. 2011;43:779–783.
246. Nessar G, Fazio VW, Tekkis P, et al. Long-term outcome and quality of life after continent ileostomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:336–344.
247. Lightner AL, Shogan BD, Mathis KL, et al. Revisional and reconstructive surgery for failing IPAA is associated with good function and pouch salvage in highly selected patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61:920–930.
248. Pellino G, Selvaggi F. Outcomes of salvage surgery for ileal pouch complications and dysfunctions. the experience of a referral centre and review of literature. J Crohns Colitis. 2015;9:548–557.
249. Remzi FH, Aytac E, Ashburn J, et al. Transabdominal redo ileal pouch surgery for failed restorative proctocolectomy: lessons learned over 500 patients. Ann Surg. 2015;262:675–682.
250. Abdalla M, Norblad R, Olsson M, et al. Anorectal function after ileo-rectal anastomosis is better than pelvic pouch in selected ulcerative colitis patients. Dig Dis Sci. 2020;65:250–259.
251. Mortier PE, Gambiez L, Karoui M, et al. Colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis preserves female fertility in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2006;30:594–597.
252. de Buck van Overstraeten A, Brar MS, Khorasani S, Dossa F, Myrelid P. Ileorectal anastomosis versus IPAA for the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis: a Markov decision analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63:1276–1284.
253. Andersson P, Norblad R, Söderholm JD, Myrelid P. Ileorectal anastomosis in comparison with ileal pouch anal anastomosis in reconstructive surgery for ulcerative colitis–a single institution experience. J Crohns Colitis. 2014;8:582–589.
254. Ishii H, Hata K, Kishikawa J, et al. Incidence of neoplasias and effectiveness of postoperative surveillance endoscopy for patients with ulcerative colitis: comparison of ileorectal anastomosis and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14:75.
255. Uzzan M, Kirchgesner J, Oubaya N, et al. Risk of rectal neoplasia after colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11:930–935.
256. Landerholm K, Abdalla M, Myrelid P, Andersson RE. Survival of ileal pouch anal anastomosis constructed after colectomy or secondary to a previous ileorectal anastomosis in ulcerative colitis patients: a population-based cohort study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017;52:531–535.
257. Cornish JA, Tan E, Teare J, et al. The effect of restorative proctocolectomy on sexual function, urinary function, fertility, pregnancy and delivery: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50:1128–1138.
258. Ørding Olsen K, Juul S, Berndtsson I, Oresland T, Laurberg S. Ulcerative colitis: female fecundity before diagnosis, during disease, and after surgery compared with a population sample. Gastroenterology. 2002;122:15–19.
259. Johnson P, Richard C, Ravid A, et al. Female infertility after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:1119–1126.
260. Gorgun E, Remzi FH, Goldberg JM, et al. Fertility is reduced after restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a study of 300 patients. Surgery. 2004;136:795–803.
261. Waljee A, Waljee J, Morris AM, Higgins PD. Threefold increased risk of infertility: a meta-analysis of infertility after ileal pouch anal anastomosis in ulcerative colitis. Gut. 2006;55:1575–1580.
262. Pabby V, Oza SS, Dodge LE, et al. In vitro fertilization is successful in women with ulcerative colitis and ileal pouch anal anastomosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:792–797.
263. Pachler FR, Toft G, Bisgaard T, Laurberg S. Use and success of in vitro fertilization following restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a nationwide 17-year cohort study. J Crohn’s Colitis. 2019;13:1283–1286.
264. Pachler FR, Bisgaard T, Mark-Christensen A, Toft G, Laurberg S. Impact on fertility after failure of restorative proctocolectomy in men and women with ulcerative colitis: a 17-year cohort study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63:816–822.
265. Cornish J, Wooding K, Tan E, Nicholls RJ, Clark SK, Tekkis PP. Study of sexual, urinary, and fecal function in females following restorative proctocolectomy. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2012;18:1601–1607.
266. Hahnloser D, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG, et al. Pregnancy and delivery before and after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for inflammatory bowel disease: immediate and long-term consequences and outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:1127–1135.
267. Polle SW, Vlug MS, Slors JF, et al. Effect of vaginal delivery on long-term pouch function. Br J Surg. 2006;93:1394–1401.
268. Remzi FH, Gorgun E, Bast J, et al. Vaginal delivery after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a word of caution. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:1691–1699.
269. Bradford K, Melmed GY, Fleshner P, Silverman N, Dubinsky MC. Significant variation in recommendation of care for women of reproductive age with ulcerative colitis postileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59:1115–1120.
270. Mahadevan U, Robinson C, Bernasko N, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease in pregnancy clinical care pathway: a report from the American Gastroenterological Association IBD Parenthood Project Working Group. Gastroenterology. 2019;156:1508–1524.
271. Davies RJ, O’Connor BI, Victor C, MacRae HM, Cohen Z, McLeod RS. A prospective evaluation of sexual function and quality of life after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:1032–1035.
272. Kjaer MD, Laursen SB, Qvist N, Kjeldsen J, Poornoroozy PH. Sexual function and body image are similar after laparoscopy-assisted and open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. World J Surg. 2014;38:2460–2465.
273. Mantzouranis G, Fafliora E, Glanztounis G, Christodoulou DK, Katsanos KH. Inflammatory bowel disease and sexual function in male and female patients: an update on evidence in the past ten years. J Crohns Colitis. 2015;9:1160–1168.
274. Farouk R, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG, Dozois RR, Browning S, Larson D. Functional outcomes after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. Ann Surg. 2000;231:919–926.
275. Friedman S, Magnussen B, O’Toole A, Fedder J, Larsen MD, Nørgård BM. Increased use of medications for erectile dysfunction in men with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease compared to men without inflammatory bowel disease: a nationwide cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113:1355.
276. Segal JP, Ding NS, Worley G, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the management of chronic refractory pouchitis with an evidence-based treatment algorithm. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017;45:581–592.
277. Bertucci Zoccali M, Hyman NH, Skowron KB, et al. Exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor medications increases the incidence of pouchitis after restorative proctocolectomy in patients with ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2019;62:1344–1351.
278. Netz U, Galbraith NJ, O’Brien S, et al. Long-term outcomes following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with indeterminate colitis. Surgery. 2018;163:535–541.
279. Nguyen N, Zhang B, Holubar SD, Pardi DS, Singh S. Treatment and prevention of pouchitis after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;5:CD001176.
280. McLaughlin SD, Clark SK, Tekkis PP, Ciclitira PJ, Nicholls RJ. An open study of maintenance antibiotic therapy for chronic antibiotic-dependent pouchitis: efficacy, complications and outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:438–444.
281. Herfarth HH, Long MD, Isaacs KL. Use of biologics in pouchitis: a systematic review. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015;49:647–654.
282. Bär F, Kühbacher T, Dietrich NA, et al.; German IBD Study Group. Vedolizumab in the treatment of chronic, antibiotic-dependent or refractory pouchitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47:581–587.
283. Ollech JE, Rubin DT, Glick L, et al. Ustekinumab is effective for the treatment of chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis. Dig Dis Sci. 2019;64:3596–3601.
284. Weaver KN, Gregory M, Syal G, et al. Ustekinumab is effective for the treatment of Crohn’s disease of the pouch in a multicenter cohort. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2019;25:767–774.
285. Kjær MD, Qvist N, Nordgaard-Lassen I, Christensen LA, Kjeldsen J. Adalimumab in the treatment of chronic pouchitis. A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2019;54:188–193.
286. Holubar SD, Neary P, Aiello A, et al. Ileal pouch revision vs excision: short-term (30-day) outcomes from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Colorectal Dis. 2019;21:209–218.
287. Sahami S, Wildenberg ME, Koens L, et al. Appendectomy for therapy-refractory ulcerative colitis results in pathological improvement of colonic inflammation: short-term results of the PASSION study. J Crohns Colitis. 2019;13:165–171.
288. Stellingwerf ME, Sahami S, Winter DC, et al. Prospective cohort study of appendicectomy for treatment of therapy-refractory ulcerative colitis. Br J Surg. 2019;106:1697–1704.
289. Fazio VW. Toxic megacolon in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s colitis. Clin Gastroenterol. 1980;9:389–407.
290. Ooi BS, Remzi FH, Fazio VW. Turnbull-Blowhole colostomy for toxic ulcerative colitis in pregnancy: report of two cases. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:111–115.
291. Russell TA, Dawes AJ, Graham DS, Angarita SAK, Ha C, Sack J. Rescue diverting loop ileostomy: an alternative to emergent colectomy in the setting of severe acute refractory IBD-colitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61:214–220.
292. Bonovas S, Lytras T, Nikolopoulos G, Peyrin-Biroulet L, Danese S. Systematic review with network meta-analysis: comparative assessment of tofacitinib and biological therapies for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47:454–465.
293. Sandborn WJ, Su C, Panes J. Tofacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:496–497.
294. Sandborn WJ, Su C, Sands BE, et al.; OCTAVE Induction 1, OCTAVE Induction 2, and OCTAVE Sustain Investigators. Tofacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1723–1736.
295. U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationFDA approves boxed warning about increased risk of blood clots and death with higher dose of arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR).Issued February 25, 2019. Accessed March 1, 2020.
296. Sandborn WJ, Panés J, Sands BE, et al. Venous thromboembolic events in the tofacitinib ulcerative colitis clinical development programme. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2019;50:1068–1076.

Supplemental Digital Content

© The ASCRS 2021