Redo Ileocolic Resection for Crohn's Disease, Does It Palliate the Patients as Good as the Primary Resection?

Objective: We questioned how redo ileocolic resection (R-ICR) in Crohn’s disease (CD) alleviates patients in the long-term compared with primary resection. Methods: A single-center retrospective analysis of patients who underwent an elective ICR without diversion between the years 2010–2022. The cohort was divided into two groups, namely, R-ICR and primary ileocolic resection (P-ICR). Results: The study included 181 patients, of which 30 patients are in the R-ICR group (mean age 42.3 years) and 151 patients in the P-ICR group (mean age 32.6 years). The R-ICR patients underwent an open approach (76.7% versus 25.2% among the P-ICR, p < .001), had significantly longer operations (mean 200.9 minutes versus 157.2 minutes, respectively, P = .002), and had higher estimated blood loss (mean 350 mL versus 267.4 mL, P = .043). The groups were similar in overall postoperative morbidity, severe postoperative complications (10% versus 13.2%, P = .762), and median length of hospital stay (12.1 days versus 7.4 days, P = .214). After a median follow-up of 64.2 months, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of endoscopic recurrence (43.3% versus 60.9% in the P-ICR group, P = .104) or in clinical recurrence (43.3% versus 55.6%, respectively, P = .216), but the R-ICR had a significant higher rate of surgical recurrences (23.3% versus 5.3%, respectively, P = .004). Conclusion: R-ICR for CD is a significantly more challenging operation than the primary resection, and patients undergoing a R-ICR are more susceptible to a future surgical intervention than those having P-ICR.