Chen Siying,Wu Wenjie,Shen Zhiyun,et al.Functional evaluations of neonates with intermediate anorectal malformations after primary anoplasty[J].Journal of Clinical Pediatric Surgery,,21():1168-1173.[doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn101785-202111033-013]
Functional evaluations of neonates with intermediate anorectal malformations after primary anoplasty
- Keywords:
- Anorectal Malformations; General Surgery; Anus; Imperforate; Treatment Outcome; Infant; Newborn
- Abstract:
- Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy and prognosis of neonatal primary anoplasty through a retrospective comparison of the results of defecation function and anorectal manometry after one-stage anoplasty.Methods From January 2006 to August 2019,a total of 132 children with intermediate anorectal malformation were recruited as study subjects.All of them underwent modified posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (mini-Pe?a).According to operative period,they were divided into two groups.Group 1 included 22 children diagnosed with intermediate anorectal malformation during neonatal period undergoing primary anoplasty.And group 2 had 110 children undergoing traditional staged anoplasty.Both groups were followed up for 15 years to evaluate long-term defecation functions and complications.During follow-ups,Rintala score was employed for evaluating postoperative defecation function and the grades were excellent,good,moderate and poor.All cases were examined by anorectal manometry,including anal resting pressure,anal length,internal sphincter resting pressure and length,external sphincter resting pressure and length and rectoanal inhibitory reflex (RAIR),etc.Results No significant inter-group differences in gender ratio or birth weight (P>0.05).Duration of postoperative hospital stay was longer in group 1 than that in group 2[(17.1±3.9) vs.(10.4±3.4) d,P<0.05].Hospital stay and operative duration were markedly shorter in group 1 than those in group 2[(19.6±5.5) vs.(37.5±10.7) days;(128.9±29.0) vs.(287.9±61.2) min,P<0.05].No significant inter-group difference existed in anal length or internal/external sphincter length(P>0.05).Anal resting pressure,internal sphincter resting pressure and external sphincter resting pressure of group 1 were higher than those in group 2[(53.8±15.5) vs.(36.7±10.4) mmHg;(53.5±15.1) vs.(34.6 ±8.7) mmHg;(45.7±16.9) vs.(33.9±11.8) mmHg,P<0.05].Extraction rate of rectal inhibitory reflex was significantly higher in group 1 than that in group 2 (66.7% vs.0%,P<0.05).No significant statistical difference existed in other anorectal pressures(P>0.05).Rintala score of two groups showed no obvious difference in rate of excellent/good(83.3% vs.88.0%,P>0.05).(83.3% vs.88.0%,P>0.05).No significant inter-group differences existed in the incidence of constipation,soiling or postoperative complications(25% vs.28.0%;16.7% vs.16.0%;33.3% vs.50.7%,P>0.05).Conclusion Neonates with intermediate anorectal malformations undergoing one-stage anoplasty can also have good postoperative stool control ability.Early one-stage anoplasty may avoid operative wound and closure of stoma.
References:
[1] Divarci E,Ergun O.General complications after surgery for anorectal malformations[J].Pediatr Surg Int,2020,36(4):431-445.DOI:10.1007/s00383-020-04629-9.
[2] Levitt MA,Pe?a A.Anorectal malformations[J].Orphanet J Rare Dis,2007,2:33.DOI:10.1186/1750-1172-2-33.
[3] Wood RJ,Halleran DR,Ahmad H,et al.Assessing the benefit of reoperations in patients who suffer from fecal incontinence after repair of their anorectal malformation[J].J Pediatr Surg,2020,55(10):2159-2165.DOI:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.06.011.
[4] Pe?a A,Devries PA.Posterior sagittal anorectoplasty:important technical considerations and new applications[J].J Pediatr Surg,1982,17(6):796-811.DOI:10.1016/s0022-3468(82)80448-x.
[5] Willital GH.Endosurgical intrapuborectal reconstruction of high anorectal anomalies[J].Pediatric Endosurgery & Innovative Techniques,1998,2(1):5-11.DOI:10.1089/pei.1998.2.5.
[6] Upadhyaya VD,Gopal SC,Gupta DK,et al.Single stage repair of anovestibular fistula in neonate[J].Pediatr Surg Int,2007,23(8):737-740.DOI:10.1007/s00383-007-1965-z.
[7] Rintala RJ,Lindahl H.Is normal bowel function possible after repair of intermediate and high anorectal malformations?[J].J Pediatr Surg,1995,30(3):491-494.DOI:10.1016/0022-3468(95)90064-0.
[8] Chung P,Wong C,Wong K,et al.Assessing the long term manometric outcomes in patients with previous laparoscopic anorectoplasty (LARP) and posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP)[J].J Pediatr Surg,2018,53(10):1933-1936.DOI:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.10.058.
[9] Albanese CT,Jennings RW,Lopoo JB,et al.One-stage correction of high imperforate anus in the male neonate[J].J Pediatr Surg,1999,34(5):834-836.DOI:10.1016/s0022-3468(99)90382-2.
[10] Bischoff A,Levitt MA,Lawal TA,et al.Colostomy closure:how to avoid complications[J].Pediatr Surg Int,2010,26(11):1087-1092.DOI:10.1007/s00383-010-2690-6.
[11] Chandramouli B,Srinivasan K,Jagdish S,et al.Morbidity and mortality of colostomy and its closure in children[J].J Pediatr Surg,2004,39(4):596-599.DOI:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2003.12.016.
[12] Macmahon RA,Cohen SJ,Eckstein HB.Colostomies in Infancy and Childhood[J].Arch Dis Child,1963,38(198):114-117.DOI:10.1136/adc.38.198.114.
[13] Gangopadhyay AN,Shilpa S,Mohan TV,et al.Single-stage management of all pouch colon (anorectal malformation) in newborns[J].J Pediatr Surg,2005,40(7):1151-1155.DOI:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2005.03.050.
[14] Gangopadhyay AN,Gopal SC,Sharma S,et al.Management of anorectal malformations in Varanasi,India:a long-term review of single and three stage procedures[J].Pediatr Surg Int,2006,22(2):169-172.DOI:10.1007/s00383-005-1567-6.
[15] Liu G,Yuan J,Geng J,et al.The treatment of high and intermediate anorectal malformations:one stage or three procedures?[J].J Pediatr Surg,2004,39(10):1466-1471.DOI:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.06.021.
[16] Adeniran JO.One-stage correction of imperforate anus and rectovestibular fistula in girls:Preliminary results[J].J Pediatr Surg,2002,37(6):E16.DOI:10.1053/jpsu.2002.32927.
[17] Pena A,Migotto-Krieger M,Levitt MA.Colostomy in anorectal malformations:a procedure with serious but preventable complications[J].J Pediatr Surg,2006,41(4):748-756.DOI:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2005.12.021.
[18] Patwardhan N,Kiely EM,Drake DP,et al.Colostomy for anorectal anomalies:high incidence of complications[J].J Pediatr Surg,2001,36(5):795-798.DOI:10.1053/jpsu.2001.22963.
[19] Xiao H,Chen L,Ren XH,et al.One-stage laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty for neonates with anorectal malformation and recto-prostatic or recto-bulbar fistula according to the Krickenbeck Classification[J].J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A,2018,28(8):1029-1034.DOI:10.1089/lap.2017.0690.
[20] Karakus SC,User IR,Akcaer V,et al.Posterior sagittal anorectoplasty in vestibular fistula:with or without colostomy[J].Pediatr Surg Int,2017,33(7):755-759.DOI:10.1007/s00383-017-4102-7.
[21] Menon P,Rao KL.Primary anorectoplasty in females with common anorectal malformations without colostomy[J].J Pediatr Surg,2007,42(6):1103-1106.DOI:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.01.056.
[22] Moore TC.Advantages of performing the sagittal anoplasty operation for imperforate anus at birth[J].J Pediatr Surg,1990,25(2):276-277.DOI:10.1016/0022-3468(90)90440-k.
Memo
收稿日期:2021-11-16。
通讯作者:王俊,Email:wangjun@xinhuamed.com.cn