Is there any difference in recurrence rates in laparoscopic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease compared with...

The long-term outcome of laparoscopic ileocolic resection in patients with Crohn's disease is not well defined. This study was designed to define the surgical recurrence rate after laparoscopic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease and to compare it with that seen after open ileocolic resection.

A retrospective review of 113 records of patients who underwent index ileocolic resection for terminal ileal Crohn's disease was performed (1987-2003). Recurrence was defined as development of new preanastomotic Crohn's disease requiring surgical intervention. Details of recurrence and use of chemoprophylaxis was determined by phone interview and chart review.

Sixty-three patients (26 males; mean age, 35.2 years) underwent laparoscopic ileocolic resection and 50 had open ileocolic resection (17 males; mean age, 37.1 years). Surgical recurrence developed in 6 of 63 patients (9.5 percent) in the laparoscopic ileocolic resection group (mean follow-up, 62.9 months) and in 12 of 50 patients (24 percent) in the open ileocolic resection group (mean follow-up, 81.8 months). Rates of chemoprophylaxis were similar between groups (laparoscopic ileocolic resection, 39 percent; open ileocolic resection, 54 percent; P = not significant). Median times to recurrence after laparoscopic ileocolic resection and open ileocolic resection were 60 (range, 36-72) months and 62 (range, 12-180) months, respectively. Fifty percent of the recurrences in the laparoscopic ileocolic resection group and 4 of 12 in the open ileocolic resection group were able to be retreated laparoscopically. Re-recurrence occurred in 4 of 12 open ileocolic resection patients (33 percent) at a mean of 63.6 months, and one patient had a third recurrence at 28 months.

In this study, the long-term outcome after laparoscopic ileocolic resection was not shown to be statistically different from that of open ileocolic resection. The relatively low recurrence rates in both groups may be explained by our aggressive use of chemoprophylaxis.