Basically, yeah, your GI is right. Your best chances of a long-term successful outcome is a colostomy - if you're happy with a colostomy, I'd go with that. I had an ileostomy for a couple of years, then was reconnected to whatever was left of my colon (very little: the rectum and a part of the sigmoid). The Crohn's came back at the surgical site almost immediately. My bowel function is definitely not normal, in fact it's rubbish.
In retrospect it was probably a terrible decision to have a reversal. I honestly didn't think the Crohn's would come back as quickly as it did. It's not even mild either, unlike when I was first diagnosed. I think if you have a resection, you would be at real risk of the Crohn's moving downwards into your rectum. I'm assuming there is no Crohn's above your descending colon? If your entire colon is affected then you should really have a total colectomy, but it doesn't sound like it from your post.
PS: Ask your surgeon what he intends to do with your butt. If you are gonna have a permanent colostomy, then I think it would be better to get everything removed and your butt sewn up. Not only can Crohn's affect a defunct rectum/colon, another condition called diversion colitis can as well. In a nutshell the colon becomes inflamed in the absence of any stool passing through it - it doesn't like being deprived of 'food'! Symptoms are passing mucus and, if it's bad, blood. You will also suffer from tenesmus, a need to go to the toilet when there is nothing there. I had diversion colitis (or Crohn's, but supposedly the biopsies were clear for Crohn's), and while it isn't nearly as bad as what I'm going through now, it was still something I could have done without.
Also, in the long-term there is the risk of cancer in an unused rectum or colon. It not being used doesn't make the cancer risk go away.
Post Edited (NiceCupOfTea) : 9/8/2017 8:34:24 PM (GMT-6)