MEDICAL, ENDOSCOPIC, AND SURGICAL THERAPIES FOR THE TREATMENT OF RECTAL CUFFITIS IN ULCERATIVE COLITIS PATIENTS WITH AN ILEAL POUCH-ANAL ANASTOMOSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Authors: Powers Joseph , Dester Emma , Schleicher Mary , Cohen Benjamin , Lashner Bret , Ivanov Andrei , Hull Tracy , Falloon Katherine , Qazi Taha 
Published: January 2024

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) without mucosectomy are left with a rectal cuff, which can develop inflammation known as cuffitis. Treatment of cuffitis typically includes mesalamine suppositories or corticosteroids, but individuals with refractory cuffitis may require advanced therapies, endoscopic intervention, or surgical intervention. The aim of this review is to summarize the existing literature regarding treatments options for cuffitis.

METHODS

A broad search strategy was created by a medical librarian to capture rectal cuffitis in IPAA patients. The following databases were searched: Ovid Medline® ALL, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), and 3 indexes in Web of Science from Clarivate: Science Citation Index-Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and BIOSIS Citation Index. A total of 1,652 citations were identified, and 836 studies remained after removal of 816 duplicates. Two reviewers screened all 836 abstracts and 241 full-text articles to determine if they were eligible for inclusion in this review.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies (10 cohort studies, 9 case-series, 2 open-label clinical trials) met the inclusion criteria. Medical interventions were investigated in 15 studies (Table 1) with mesalamine being the most common (4 studies) followed by corticosteroids (3 studies), ustekinumab (3 studies), vedolizumab (2 studies), tofacitinib (1 study), and infliximab (1 study). Studies investigating mesalamine and corticosteroid use generally had larger sample sizes (ranging 4-120 patients) and showed symptomatic improvement in 51.7-100% of patients and decreases of 1.14-1.8 points in endoscopic disease activity indices. In contrast, studies investigating advanced therapies had small sample sizes (ranging 1-21 patients) and showed variable responses ranging from no clinical (tofacitinib) or endoscopic (ustekinumab, vedolizumab) improvements to clinical (ustekinumab) or endoscopic (vedolizumab) responses in 75% of patients.

Endoscopic and surgical approaches were explored in 6 studies (Table 2) and included secondary mucosectomy (2 studies), endoscopic cuff resection, transanal minimally invasive surgery, endoscopic needle-knife therapy, and balloon dilation for cuffitis patients with concomitant outlet strictures (1 study each). These techniques generally resulted in resolution of symptoms but were limited by small sample sizes (ranging 3-16 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies evaluating therapies used to treat rectal cuffitis suggest beneficial effects of conventional mesalamine or corticosteroid-based therapies, whereas data regarding the efficacy of advanced therapies and interventional procedures are inconsistent given small sample sizes. Further research is needed to effectively characterize additional management options for this condition.

Table 1. Medical therapies used for treatment of cuffitis. Abbreviations – BM: bowel movements, CRP: C-reactive protein, UST: ustekinumab, HBOT: hyperbaric oxygen therapy, mPDAI: modified Pouch Disease Activity Index, 5-ASA: 5-aminosalicylate, ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate, PDAI: Pouch Disease Activity Index, CGQOL: Cleveland Global Quality of Life score, IPS: Irritable Pouch Syndrome, CAI: Cuffitis Activity Index.

Table 2. Endoscopic and surgical therapies used for treatment of cuffitis. Abbreviations – FISI: Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, CGQOL: Cleveland Global Quality of Life score, PDAI: Pouch Disease Activity Index, BM: bowel movements.