4.5 Article

Postanal repair - do the long-term results justify the procedure?

Journal

COLORECTAL DISEASE
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages 367-372

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01800.x

Keywords

Incontinence; surgery; postanal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Early outcomes after postanal repair (PAR) demonstrated excellent results but subsequent reports showed an ever declining success rate in maintaining continence. The aim of this study was to document long-term continence after PAR and relate this to patient satisfaction and quality of life. Method Patients with neurogenic incontinence who underwent PAR from 1986 to 2002 were interviewed by telephone, utilizing a questionnaire which assessed continence, patient satisfaction, overall improvement, and quality of life. Results One-hundred one patients from four surgeons were identified. Fifty-four patients were excluded because of loss to follow-up. Three had a stoma (two for incontinence), four had undergone a graciloplasty, leaving 57 patients (F = 53), mean duration of follow-up of 9.1 years (2.2-18.7 years). Mean CCS was 11.7 (SD 7.4). 26% (n = 15) scored none to minimal incontinence (CCS 0-5), 26% moderate (CCS 6-12), and 48% (n = 27) severe incontinence (CCS 13-24). 79% (n = 45) were satisfied with the outcome. A low CCS significantly correlated with good patient satisfaction, and was influenced by high QOL score (P < 0.0001). A high CCS significantly correlated with high bowel frequency (P = 0.0007). A favourable CCS was associated with a good QOL, a shorter duration of follow-up, and being able to distinguish flatus and stool. Conclusions In patients with neurogenic faecal incontinence selected following anorectal physiology studies, PAR remains a useful treatment. It is associated with low morbidity and results in a satisfactory long-term subjective outcome, despite the fact that many patients have a high incontinence score.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available