Effectiveness of the antegrade colonic enema stopper at preventing stomal stenosis: long-term follow-up

AIM OF THE STUDY

Stomal stenosis is the commonest complication of the antegrade colonic enema (ACE) procedure, reportedly occurring in 25-55% of patients. As such, a simple ACE stopper device (a small silicone plug sited in the ACE conduit between catheterisations) was designed to prevent stenosis. We performed a long-term follow-up study to determine the effectiveness of the stopper device.

METHODS

A retrospective case note review was performed of all patients who successfully underwent a primary ACE procedure over an 8.5-year period (January 2002 to June 2010). The inclusion criteria were (i) a minimum of 6 months follow-up, (ii) simple appendicostomy, (iii) caecal/colonic flap. In all patients an ACE stopper was sited in the conduit for at least 4 months and removed only for catheterisation. Data are mean±SEM.

MAIN RESULTS

38 children were included in our study. Mean age at surgery was 9.6±0.5 years. Surgery was performed in 22 patients for incontinence and in 16 for chronic constipation. 31 underwent an appendicostomy and 7 had a caecal/colonic flap; all received an ACE stopper. The mean follow-up was 2.6±0.3 years. Only 3 patients (8%) developed stomal stenosis. The first occurred 6 months postoperatively, resulting from an ACE stopper which was too small and consequently persistently fell out. This conduit required dilatation. The second occurred at 27 months secondary to a stomal infection and required surgical revision. The third occurred 8 months postoperatively for no obvious cause, and was treated with dilation. 1 patient experienced stomal leakage.

CONCLUSION

The ACE stopper is a simple yet highly effective method of preventing stomal stenosis. We recommend using the stopper in all ACE patients.

Prospective surveillance of women with a family history of breast cancer: auditing the risk threshold

To evaluate current guidelines criteria for inclusion of women in special ‘breast cancer family history’ surveillance programmes, records were reviewed of women referred to Scottish breast cancer family clinics between January 1994 and December 2003 but discharged as at ‘less than ‘moderate’ familial risk’. The Scottish Cancer Registry was then interrogated to determine subsequent age-specific incidence of breast cancer in this cohort and corresponding Scottish population figures. Among 2074 women, with an average follow-up of 4.0 years, 28 invasive breast cancers were recorded up to December 2003, where 14.4 were expected, a relative risk (RR) of 1.94. Eleven further breast cancers were recorded between January 2004 and February 2006 (ascertainment incomplete for this period). The overall RR for women in the study cohort exceeded the accepted ‘cutoff’ level (RR=1.7) for provision of special counselling and surveillance. The highest RR was found for the age group 45–59 years and this group also generated the majority of breast cancers. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (‘NICE’) guidelines appear to be more accurate than those of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (‘SIGN’) in defining ‘moderate’ familial risk, and longer follow-up of this cohort could generate an evidence base for further modification of familial breast cancer services.