Restorative surgery after colectomy for ulcerative colitis in England and Sweden: observations from a comparison of nationwide cohorts. (19th April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Worley, G.; Nordenvall, C.; Askari, A.; Pinkney, T.; Burns, E.; Akbar, A.; Olén, O.; Ekbom, A.; Bottai, M.; Myrelid, P.; Faiz, O.
• Is Part Of: Colorectal disease. Volume 20:Number 9(2018)
• Page Start: 804
• Page End: 812
• Publication Date: 2018-04-19
• Subjects: Ulcerative colitis -- colectomy -- ileal pouch -- ileorectal anastomosis -- Hospital Episode Statistics -- National Patient Register; Colon (Anatomy) -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Rectum -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.34
• DOI: 10.1111/codi.14113
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-8910

Abstract

Abstract: Aim: A longstanding disparity exists between the approaches to restorative surgery after colectomy for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) in England and Sweden. This study aims to compare rates of colectomy and restorative surgery in comparable national cohorts. Method: The English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Swedish National Patient Register (NPR) were interrogated between 2002 and April 2012. Patients with two diagnostic episodes for UC (age ≥ 15 years) were included. Patients were excluded if they had an episode of inflammatory bowel disease or colectomy before 2002. The cumulative incidences of colectomy and restorative surgery were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: A total of 98 691 patients were included in the study, 76 129 in England and 22 562 in Sweden. The 5‐year cumulative incidence of all restorative surgery after colectomy in England was 33% vs 46% in Sweden ( P ‐value < 0.001). Of the patients undergoing restorative surgery, 92.3% of English patients had a pouch vs 38.8% in Sweden and 7.7% vs 59.1% respectively had an ileorectal anastomosis (IRA). The 5‐year cumulative incidence of colectomy in this study cohort was 13% in England and 6% in Sweden ( P ‐value < 0.001). Conclusion: Following colectomy for UC only one‐third of English patients and half of Swedish patients underwent restorative surgery. In England nearly all these patients underwent pouches, in Sweden a less significant majority underwent IRAs. It is surprising to demonstrate this discrepancy in a comparable cohort of patients from similar healthcare systems. The causes and consequences of this international variation in management are not fully understood and require further investigation.