Is measuring the residual rectourethral fistula during laparoscopically assisted anorectal pull-through for male high/intermediate type imperforate anus beneficial? Mid-term follow-up

Long-term outcomes of male imperforate anus with recto-urethral fistula: laparoscopy-assisted anorectoplasty versus posterior sagittal anorectoplasty

PURPOSE

A five-parameter fecal continence evaluation questionnaire (FCEQ) and incidence of complications were used for long-term assessment of laparoscopy-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) and posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) for treating male imperforate anus (MIA) with rectobulbar (RB) or rectoprostatic (RP) fistulas.

METHODS

Subjects were 64 consecutive Japanese MIA patients with RB or RP fistulas treated at a single institution between 1995 and 2021. FCEQ data collected retrospectively were used to calculate a fecal continence evaluation (FCE) score (best = 10) and coefficient of variation for FCE (FCECV). The statistical significance threshold was defined at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Fistulas were RB (n = 40; LAARP = 25/40, PSARP = 15/40) or RP (n = 24; LAARP = 17/24, PSARP = 7/24). Mean ages at surgery and status of the sacrum were similar (p = 0.06, 0.05 and 0.51). FCE scores in RP-LAARP were consistently higher with less FCECV but differences were only statistically significant from 7 years postoperatively (p < 0.05). While FCE scores for RB-LAARP and RB-PSARP were similar (p = 0.99), FCECV were lower for RB-LAARP compared with RB-PSARP. LAARP was associated with less-wound infections, but greater incidence of anal mucosal prolapse unrelated to preoperative status of the sacrum.

CONCLUSION

Long-term postoperative FCEQ assessment favored LAARP for treating MIA with either RB or RP fistulas.

Lessons learned from lower urinary tract complications of anorectoplasty for imperforate anus with rectourethral/rectovesical fistula: Laparoscopy-assisted versus posterior sagittal approaches

PURPOSE

To report the sequelae of and preventive strategies for selected lower urinary tract (LUT) complications, i.e., posterior urethral diverticulum (PUD), intraoperative LUT injuries, postoperative dysuria, and fistula recurrence in male imperforate anus (IA) with rectourethral/rectovesical (RU/RV) fistula after laparoscopy-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) or posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP).

METHODS

153 boys with IA and RU/RV fistula treated 1986-2019 by LAARP (n = 56) or PSARP (n = 97) at two unrelated institutes were studied retrospectively.

RESULTS

After mean follow-up of 17.0 years (range: 36.5 days-32.0 years), the overall incidences of LUT complications were: LAARP (6/56; 10.7%); PSARP (7/97; 7.2%); p = 0.55, comprising PUD: LAARP (n = 5), PSARP (n = 0); p = 0.006; injuries: LAARP (n = 0), PSARP (n = 5); p = 0.16; dysuria: LAARP (n = 1), PSARP (n = 1); p>0.999; and recurrence: LAARP (n = 0), PSARP (n = 1); p>0.999. Mean onset of PUD was 5.1 years (range: 1.0-15.1 years).

TREATMENT

PUD: surgery (n = 2/5), conservative (n = 3/5); injuries: intraoperative repair (n = 5/5); dysuria: conservative (n = 2/2), and recurrence: redo PSARP (n = 1/1).

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies devised to improve dissection accuracy resolved the specific technical issues causing LUT complications (remnant RU fistula dissection in LAARP and blind posterior access in PSARP). Currently, the incidence of new cases of PUD and LUT injuries is zero.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Laparoscopically assisted anorectoplasty-Surgical procedures and outcomes: A literature review

Anorectal malformation includes various types of anomalies. The goal of definitive surgery is achievement of fecal continence. Twenty years have passed since laparoscopically assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) was reported by Georgeson. Since LAARP is gaining popularity, its long-term outcomes should be evaluated. Presently, there is no evidence regarding the optimal method of ligating and dividing the fistula correctly and creating the pull-through canal accurately. Rectal prolapse and remnant of the original fistula (ROOF) tend to develop more often in LAARP patients than in posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) patients; however, robust evidence is not available. Prolapse may be prevented by suture fixation of the rectum to the presacral fascia; however, if prolapse occurs, the indication, timing, and the best method for surgical correction remain unclear. Most patients with ROOF are asymptomatic, and there is controversy regarding the indications for ROOF resection. This article aimed to detail the various modifications of the LAARP procedures reported previously and to describe the surgical outcomes, particularly focusing on rectal prolapse, ROOF, and fecal continence, by reviewing the literature. Functional outcomes after LAARP were almost similar to those noted after PSARP, and we have demonstrated that LAARP is not inferior to PSARP with respect to fecal continence. Although there is controversy regarding the application of LAARP for recto-bulbar cases, we believe that LAARP is still evolving, and we can achieve better outcomes by improving the procedure.

Rectal Prolapse After Laparoscopically Assisted Anorectoplasty for Anorectal Malformations

Aim: To clarify the characteristics of patients with rectal prolapse after laparoscopically assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP), estimate the causes, and evaluate its impact on postoperative bowel function. Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent LAARP for high- or intermediate-type anorectal malformation between 2000 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical data were compared between patients with (Group P) and without prolapse (normal, Group N). Fecal continence was evaluated using the clinical assessment score for fecal continence developed by the Japanese Study Group of Anorectal Anomalies. For patients who underwent pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before LAARP, atrophy, or asymmetry of the anal sphincter and levator ani was evaluated by a radiologist. Results: Of the 49 patients, 29 (59%) had rectal prolapse after LAARP (Group P) and 20 did not (Group N). We found no significant difference in gender, type of malformations, incidence of associated spinal or lumbosacral anomalies, procedure time, and postoperative bowel function at ages 4, 8, 12, and 16 years. However, LAARP was performed significantly earlier in Group N (median [range], 180 [123-498] days) than in Group P (210 [141-570] days). In Group P, 18 patients (62%) developed prolapse before colostomy takedown. Eight of 26 patients who underwent surgical prolapse repair required redo procedures. Twenty-five patients who underwent preoperative pelvic MRI showed no significant relationship between the muscular abnormalities and the incidence of postoperative rectal prolapse. Conclusions: Although recurrence is common, performing LAARP at a younger age might prevent postoperative prolapse development.

Fact or myth? The long shared common wall between the fistula and the urethra in male anorectal malformation with urethral bulbar fistula

AIM

It has long been considered surgical dogma that the length of the shared common wall (CW) between a fistula and the urethra in males with anorectal malformation (ARM) and rectourethral bulbar fistula (RUBF) is considerably longer than in males with ARM and rectourethral prostatic fistula (RUPF). This belief has led surgeons who perform laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) for RUPF to avoid LAARP for RUBF for risk of potential injury to the urethra or incomplete removal of the fistula. In this study, we compared CW between RUBF and RUPF using distal colostography (DCG) and direct intraoperative measurements.

METHODS

DCG of rectourethral fistula patients (n = 63; RUBF: n = 44; RUPF: n = 19) were used to measure CW retrospectively. Results were expressed as a ratio of the height of L4; i.e., CW:L4. If less than 0.7, the CW was classified as being "short"; if 0.71-1.4, as being "medium"; and if greater than 1.41, as being "long". CW that could not be measured was classified as indeterminate. 24 of these patients also had CW measured intraoperatively during LAARP as previously described. The results obtained using both techniques were also compared.

RESULTS

Surprisingly, CW:L4 in RUBF patients was short in 47.7%, medium in 27.3%, long in 20.5%, and indeterminate in 4.5% on DCG, equivalent to mean lengths of 7 mm, 8.5 mm, and 10.3 mm obtained using direct intraoperative measurement for short, medium, and long CW:L4 categories, respectively. CW:L4 in RUPF was short in 73.6%, medium in 10.5%, and long in 5.2% on DCG, while mean intraoperative measurements were 5 mm, 7 mm, and 10 mm, respectively. Differences in CW measured intraoperatively were not significantly different between RUBF and RUPF (p = NS).

CONCLUSION

From our findings, 47.7% of CWs in RUBF were short using two independent methods, with only 20.5% being long. Thus, LAARP should be considered actively for treating selected RUBF cases and not be excluded on the basis of CW length.

Laparoscopically Assisted Anorectoplasty for Intermediate-Type Imperforate Anus: Comparison of Surgical Outcomes with the Sacroperineal Approach

Aim: This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of patients with the intermediate-type imperforate anus who underwent laparoscopically assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP; L group) with those of patients who underwent sacroperineal anorectoplasty (S group). Materials and Methods: The medical records of patients with intermediate-type imperforate anus at a single institution between April 1983 and April 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Fecal continence was evaluated using the clinical assessment score for fecal continence developed by the Japanese Study Group of Anorectal Anomalies (maximum score, 8). Results: Twelve cases (rectobulbar urethral fistula, 7; anal agenesis without fistula, 4; and rectovaginal fistula, 1) were included in the L group versus 14 cases (rectobulbar urethral fistula, 11, and anal agenesis without fistula, 3) in the S group. Age and body weight at the time of surgery and rate of associated anomalies did not differ significantly between the two groups. The total scores for fecal continence 3, 5, and 7 years after anorectoplasty were 4, 5, and 4 points in the L group and 4, 5, and 6 points in the S group, respectively, showing no significant intergroup differences. Mucosal prolapse occurred in 50% of the L group and 29% of the S group (P = .42), but failed rectocutaneous anastomosis and anal stenosis were not identified in either group. Conclusions: Postoperative fecal continence and the incidence of complications after LAARP were comparable with those after sacroperineal anorectoplasty in patients with intermediate-type imperforate anus.