Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) (collectively termed inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)) are complex disorders reflected by wide variation in clinical practice. These guidelines, commissioned by the Clinical Services’ Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) for clinicians and allied professionals caring for patients with IBD in the United Kingdom, provide an evidence based document describing good clinical practice for investigation and treatment. The guidelines are intended to bring consistency, but should not necessarily be regarded as the standard of care for all patients. Individual cases must be managed on the basis of all clinical data available for that case. Patient preferences should be sought and decisions jointly made between patient and health professional.

### 1.1 Development of guidelines

A comprehensive literature search was performed using electronic databases (Medline, PubMed, and Ovid; keywords: “inflammatory bowel disease”, “ulcerative colitis”, and “Crohn’s disease”) by Dr Carter. A preliminary document was drafted by Dr Carter, Dr Lobo, and contributing authors. This was summarised by Dr Travis and revised after circulation first to the committee and then to members of the IBD section of the BSG, before submission to the Clinical Services’ Committee.

### 1.2 Grading of recommendations1

The guidelines conform to the North of England evidence based guidelines development project. The grading of each recommendation is dependent on the category of evidence supporting it:





### 1.3 Scheduled review of guidelines

The content and evidence base …

https://gut.bmj.com/content/gutjnl/53/suppl_5/v1.full.pdf

Guidelines for the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults

Objective: To investigate the effect of a restricted intravenous fluid regimen versus a standard regimen on complications after colorectal resection. Summary Background Data: Current fluid administration in major surgery causes a weight increase of 3‐ 6 kg. Complications after colorectal surgery are reported in up to 68% of patients. Associations between postoperative weight gain and poor survival as well as fluid overload and complications have been shown. Methods: We did a randomized observer-blinded multicenter trial. After informed consent was obtained, 172 patients were allocated to either a restricted or a standard intraoperative and postoperative intravenous fluid regimen. The restricted regimen aimed at maintaining preoperative body weight; the standard regimen resembled everyday practice. The primary outcome measures were complications; the secondary measures were death and adverse effects. Results: The restricted intravenous fluid regimen significantly reduced postoperative complications both by intention-to-treat (33% versus 51%, P 0.013) and per-protocol (30% versus 56%, P 0.003) analyses. The numbers of both cardiopulmonary (7% versus 24%, P 0.007) and tissue-healing complications (16% versus 31%, P 0.04) were significantly reduced. No patients died in the restricted group compared with 4 deaths in the standard group (0% versus 4.7%, P 0.12). No harmful adverse effects were observed. Conclusion: The restricted perioperative intravenous fluid regimen aiming at unchanged body weight reduces complications after elective colorectal resection.

Effects of intravenous fluid restriction on postoperative complications: comparison of two perioperative fluid regimens: a randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trial.

The management of inflammatory bowel disease represents a key component of clinical practice for members of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG). There has been considerable progress in management strategies affecting all aspects of clinical care since the publication of previous BSG guidelines in 2004, necessitating the present revision. Key components of the present document worthy of attention as having been subject to re-assessment, and revision, and having direct impact on practice include: The data generated by the nationwide audits of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management in the UK in 2006, and 2008. The publication of 'Quality Care: service standards for the healthcare of people with IBD' in 2009. The introduction of the Montreal classification for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. The revision of recommendations for the use of immunosuppressive therapy. The detailed analysis, guidelines and recommendations for the safe and appropriate use of biological therapies in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. The reassessment of the role of surgery in disease management, with emphasis on the importance of multi-disciplinary decision-making in complex cases. The availablity of new data on the role of reconstructive surgery in ulcerative colitis. The cross-referencing to revised guidelines for colonoscopic surveillance, for the management of metabolic bone disease, and for the care of children with inflammatory bowel disease. Use of the BSG discussion forum available on the BSG website to enable ongoing feedback on the published document http://www.bsg.org.uk/forum (accessed Oct 2010). The present document is intended primarily for the use of clinicians in the United Kingdom, and serves to replace the previous BSG guidelines in IBD, while complementing recent consensus statements published by the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) https://www.ecco-ibd.eu/index.php (accessed Oct 2010).

https://gut.bmj.com/content/gutjnl/60/5/571.full.pdf

aDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Porto; MedInUP, Centre for Drug Discovery and Innovative Medicines; Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal bIBD Unit, DIMEC, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy cDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel dGastrointestinal Unit ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco—University of Milan—Milan, Italy eIBD Unit Complesso Integrato Columbus, Gastroenterological and Endocrino-Metabolical Sciences Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli Universita’ Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy fDepartment of Gastroenterology, IBD Unit, University Hospital Santiago De Compostela (CHUS), A Coruña, Spain gDepartment of Gastroenterology, North Zealand University Hospital, Frederikssund, Denmark hFirst Department of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary iIBD Unit, St Mark’s Hospital, Middlesex, UK jDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium kInstitute of Pathology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria lDepartment of Gastroenterology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust; Institute of Inflammation and Repair, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK mUnit of General Surgery, Second University of Naples, Napoli, Italy nMaria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Department of Oncological Gastroenterology Warsaw; Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Clinical Oncology, Warsaw, Poland oDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK pImperial College London; Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK qDepartment of Pathobiology /NC22, Lerner Research Institute; Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition/A3, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA

/pdf/third-european-evidence-based-consensus-on-diagnosis-and-2g4pj48jlg.pdf

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.

http://pic2.cmt.com.cn/WebImages/Res/20121218/20121218_07b349d6-2637-4801-bdbd-4fb2c4b2a867.pdf

Management of Crohn's Disease in Adults

Background: The association between mucosal ulcerative colitis (MUC) and adenocarcinoma is well established.

Ulcerative colitis and coexisting colorectal cancer: Recurrence rate after restorative proctocolectomy

This article examines the effect of ileal pouch-anal (n=134) and coloanal (n=16) anastomoses on resting anal canal pressures in 150 patients. METHODS: Patients underwent anal manometry before ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) and coloanal anastomosis (CAA) and again six weeks after ileostomy closure following these procedures. A water-perfused catheter system with four radial ports was used for manometry, pressures being recorded during both station and continuous pull through. RESULTS: Patients with IPAA were younger than those with CAA (34 years
vs.
50 years) and had a different ratio of hand-to-stapled anastomosis (1∶2.6
vs.
1.3∶1). All CAA patients had had rectal cancer while IPAA patients suffered mainly from ulcerative colitis (n=114) or familial polyposis (n=10). The mean preoperative resting pressure for all patients was 79 mmHg (75–87, 95 percent confidence limit) and the mean fall in this pressure after surgery was 25 mmHg (−21 to −29, 95 percent confidence limit). There was no difference in preoperative pressure or fall between handsewn and stapled anastomoses, or between IPAA and CAA. CONCLUSION: There was a significant relationship between preoperative pressure and change in pressure that held true for all subgroups (change=−0.7 × preoperative pressure + 31,r=0.69). Analysis of the functional results confirmed that patients with high preoperative pressure are at risk for severe falls after surgery and are not guaranteed a good result. Conversely, patients with low preoperative pressures may actually have an increase with surgery and are not always incontinent. Patients with low preoperative anal resting pressures should not be denied anastomosis to the anus if they are continent.

Predicting the functional result of anastomoses to the anus: The paradox of preoperative anal resting pressure

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare treatment outcomes in the management of pelvic abscess (PA) after rectal surgery. METHODS: Over a 12-year period all PAs occurring in the patients undergoing colorectal resection were retrospectively reviewed. The APACHE II Score was used to stratify illness. RESULTS: Postoperative PA developed in 56 patients after cancer (32 percent), ulcerative colitis (26 percent), diverticular disease (24 percent), and Crohn's colitis (18 percent)/surgery. Overall, 24 (43 percent) of PAs were after operations for inflammatory bowel disease and 43(77 percent) of PAs were after intrapelvic intestinal anastomoses. PAs were treated by 1) antibiotics alone (11/56), 2) percutaneous computerized tomography-guided catheter drainage (13/56), 3) transperineal drainage (15/56), or 4) laparotomy (17/56). Recurrent PAs developed in 11/56 (19 percent) after initial treatment, of which 7 required additional surgery. These recurrences were evenly distributed between treatment groups. There were three deaths as a result of PA, two after laparotomy and one after percutaneous drainage. Long-term sequela in patients with intestinal anastomosis included loss of intestinal continuity (10/43) and anastomotic stenosis (7/43). There was no difference in APACHE II Score among the four treatment groups. The mortality rate was 75 percent among patients whose APACHE II Scores were greater than 15. The development of a PA after colon and rectal surgery was associated with a 5 percent mortality and 41 percent functional morbidity (23 percent permanent stoma and 18 percent symptomatic stricture rate). CONCLUSION: Using clinical judgment, if PA is amenable to computerized tomographyguided percutaneous or transperineal drainage, one of these techniques should be attempted initially in the hemodynamically stable nonseptic patient. Long-term functional disability is common after PA in rectosigmoid surgery in patients who undergo pelvic/intestinal anastomosis.

Pelvic abscess after colon and rectal surgery — What is optimal management?

Although the operation of choice for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), its place in the management of patients with FAP and cancer has not been defined. The authors have reviewed their experience with these patients to determine the safety of IPAA and its efficacy as a cancer operation. The records of 55 patients with FAP who had undergone IPAA were examined. Follow-up studies included an annual questionnaire and physical examination. Eight patients had FAP with coexisting colorectal cancer. Median age at diagnosis was 25 (range 13-46) years, and at operation 33 (range 22-36) years. Of the eight patients (four men), four had colonic cancer and four had rectal cancer. Synchronous colorectal carcinoma was found in two patients. Staging according to the tumour node metastasis classification showed that five patients had stage 1 tumour, two had stage 2 and one had stage 3. Tumours were well, moderately or poorly differentiated in one, five and two patients respectively. During a median follow-up of 56 (range 14-98) months, metastasis developed in the liver of one patient 66 months after surgery. Two patients suffered complications : one had small bowel obstruction and the other mucosal prolapse. Tubular adenomas were found in the pouch of two patients and in the anal transitional zone of one. Pouch function is good to excellent in all surviving patients. Restorative proctocolectomy for patients with FAP and coexisting colorectal cancer can be undertaken with a favourable prognosis and function. It is compatible with curative intent.

Results after restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis and coexisting colorectal cancer

A retrospective review was conducted of 326 patients undergoing intersphincteric rectal excision for ulcerative colitis. Seventy-five patients (Group A) had rectal excision with closure of the pelvic peritoneum and packing of the pelvic space via an open perineal wound. One hundred sixty-nine patients (Group B) had excision without pelvic peritoneal closure, but with the levators and subcutaneous tissue closed and with transabdominal sump suction drainage of the pelvic space. Complete healing for Groups A and B occurred by three months in 42 and 79 percent, respectively, and by six months in 56 and 89 percent. Thirty-one percent of Group A and 9 percent of Group B were unhealed at one year, and/or required further surgery. When all 326 patients were considered, healing was achieved at three, six, and 12 months, for packed and for closed wounds, in 42 percent and 79 percent, 55 percent and 89 percent, 66 percent and 91 percent, respectively. All these differences are highly significant (P<0.0001). The incidence of small-bowel obstruction requiring surgery during follow-up was similar whether the pelvic peritoneum was closed (15.5 percent) or left open (15.7 percent). Other factors which adversely affected perineal wound healing were younger age, a short history of disease, a two-stage proctocolectomy especially for persistent severe rectal disease, and the presence of perianal disease.

John R. Oakley

Papers

Ulcerative colitis and coexisting colorectal cancer: Recurrence rate after restorative proctocolectomy

Predicting the functional result of anastomoses to the anus: The paradox of preoperative anal resting pressure

Pelvic abscess after colon and rectal surgery — What is optimal management?

Results after restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis and coexisting colorectal cancer

Management of the perineal wound after rectal excision for ulcerative colitis.