4.3 Article

What is the functional result of a delayed coloanal anastomosis in redo rectal surgery?

Journal

ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 89, Issue 5, Pages E179-E183

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ans.15144

Keywords

Babcock procedure; coloanal anastomosis; delayed anastomosis; redo surgery

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundDelayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) may be used in patients with complex rectal conditions, such as chronic pelvic sepsis, low recto-vaginal and recto-vesical fistula; however, limited data are available. The aim is to report the morbidity and functional results of DCAA in redo rectal surgery. MethodsAll patients undergoing DCAA between January 2014 and August 2017 were retrospectively included. Success was defined as a functional anastomosis without stoma, evaluated using the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) score and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) functional assessment tools. ResultsOf the 72 redo pelvic surgeries, 29 (40.3%) DCAA were performed over a 4-year period. Indications for redo resection were chronic pelvic sepsis (n=13, 44.8%), recto-vaginal fistula (n=11, 37.9%) and recto-vesical fistula (n=5, 17.2%). Mean interval period between the two procedures was 143 days (8-21). Global major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo III or IV) was seen in six patients (20.7%). Stoma closure was feasible for 22 (75.9%) patients after a median period of 78days (interquartile range 61-98). The 6-month success rate was 79.3%. Mean LARS was 28.8 +/- 10.2 (3-41) (minor LARS) for 18 patients with no stoma at the end of follow-up. LARS score was significantly better with a follow-up >2 years (23.3 +/- 12.2 versus 32.3 +/- 7.9), P=0.074. Mean GIQLI score was 79.2 +/- 14.3 (48-98). ConclusionsTransanal colonic pull through with delayed anastomosis for redo-surgery in complex pelvic situations had low morbidity and avoided a permanent stoma in three out of four patients with an acceptable quality of life.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available