Anorectal reconstruction by electrostimulated graciloplasty as part of abdominoperineal resection

The antegrade continence enema procedure and total anorectal reconstruction

Patients may present with anal incontinence (AI) following repair of a congenital anorectal anomaly years previously, or require total anorectal reconstruction (TAR) following radical rectal extirpation, most commonly for rectal cancer. Others may require removal of their colostomy following sphincter excision for Fournier's gangrene, or in cases of severe perineal trauma. Most of the data pertaining to antegrade continence enema (the ACE or Malone procedure) comes from the pediatric literature in the management of children with AI, but also with supervening chronic constipation, where the quality of life and compliance with this technique appears superior to retrograde colonic washouts. Total anorectal reconstruction requires an anatomical or physical supplement to the performance of a perineal colostomy, which may include an extrinsic muscle interposition (which may or may not be 'dynamized'), construction of a neorectal reservoir, implantation of an incremental artificial bowel sphincter or creation of a terminal, smooth-muscle neosphincter. The advantages and disadvantages of these techniques and their outcome are presented here.

Management of fecal incontinence after treatment for rectal cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anorectal dysfunction constitutes a major problem in patients surviving rectal cancer. In this review, the current options for management of fecal incontinence after treatment for rectal cancer are discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

First line therapy should be conservative measures aimed at symptomatic control. Dietary regiments, fibers, constipating agents and enemas may be tried. Biofeedback is an option to strengthen the external anal sphincter, improve rectal sensitivity and coordinate pelvic floor muscles. Colonic irrigation has been successful to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life. Surgical interventions may be considered if conservative management fails. Sacral nerve stimulation is a successful minimal invasive procedure for the treatment of fecal incontinence; however, evidence of the method after treatment for rectal cancer is still limited. Complex surgical procedures should be limited to only highly selected patients. A stoma should be considered when other treatment modalities have failed.

SUMMARY

Systematic evaluation of the postoperative anorectal function in patients treated for rectal cancer should be a standard practice at every follow-up. An individually tailored treatment should be offered to the severely affected patients to minimize their symptoms. The evidence on the most commonly used treatments is sparse, therefore, further randomized controlled studies are needed.

Total perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer: long-term results of dynamic graciloplasty with Malone appendicostomy

AIM

This study aimed to assess long-term function after total perineal reconstruction (TPR) with dynamic graciloplasty (DG) and systematic Malone appendicostomy (MA) adjunction after abdominoperineal excision (APR) for rectal cancer.

METHOD

From 1999 to 2004, TPR using DG and MA was performed in 10 patients [seven women; median age 40 (range 28-55) years] after APR for rectal cancer (cT2 in one patient, cT3 in six patients and cT4 in three patients). We prospectively recorded early and late morbidity, mortality, oncological outcome, functional results (using the modified Working Party on Anal Sphincter Replacement 'WPASR' scoring system) and quality of life (QoL; using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 'EORTC' QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38 questionnaires).

RESULTS

There was no procedure-related mortality. One patient required intra-abdominal re-operation. Nine patients required local and multiple revisions [there was one coloperineal anastomosis (CPA) stenosis, five CPA mucosal prolapse, three stenosis related to graciloplasty, two MA stenosis and one MA reflux]. After a median follow up of 78 months, there was no local recurrence and six patients were alive and disease-free. Regarding the functional results, the median modified WPASR score, of 8, after a follow up of 78 months, was good. The overall QoL scores remained stable over time.

CONCLUSION

In carefully selected patients who want to avoid definitive abdominal colostomy after APR for rectal cancer, reconstruction involving MA and DG after APR for low rectal cancer is followed by good long-term function and QoL.

[Dynamic graciloplasty vs artificial bowel sphincter in the management of severe fecal incontinence]

Dynamic graciloplasty (DGP) and the Acticon Neosphincter (artificial bowel sphincter, ABS) are well-established therapeutic instruments in patients with severe fecal incontinence. However, the success rates in the literature must be interpreted with caution. The report presented here presents firstly a critical analysis of 1510 patients in 52 studies (29 DGP vs 23 ABS). The evidence of these studies was assessed using the Oxford EBM criteria. All data were statistically analysed. Up to 94% of the studies analysed show EBM levels of only >3b. Both procedures show significant improvements in postoperative continence scores (p<0.001) and a significant advantage of ABS over DGP. Nevertheless, they are associated with a high incidence of morbidity in the long term (infection rate ABS vs DGP 21.74% vs 35.1%, revision rate ABS vs DGP 37.53% vs 40.64%, and ABS explantation rates of 30%). Presently no therapeutic recommendation can be expressed based on the few data available. Furthermore, therapy should be performed in specialized centers and patients should be given a realistic picture of the critical outcome of both surgical techniques.