Comparing the fecal continence scores of patients with anorectal malformation with anorectal manometric findings.
Anal canal
Anorectal malformation
Anorectal manometry
Bowel function
Fecal incontinence
Score
Journal
Pediatric surgery international
ISSN: 1437-9813
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Surg Int
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8609169
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Aug 2021
Historique:
accepted:
13
03
2021
pubmed:
8
4
2021
medline:
10
7
2021
entrez:
7
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients undergoing surgery for anorectal malformation (ARM) may have defecation-related problems throughout their lives, even if they are perfect treated surgically. Assessment methods are needed to standardize the clinical outcomes of patients with ARM. The aim of this study was to compare the scoring systems (SS) with the anorectal manometry (AM) findings. The data of patients operated on for ARM were examined. Holschneider's, Rintala's, Krickenbeck's and Peña's questionnaires were executed to the patients and AM was performed. Our study was completed with 23 patients. There was a statistically significant relationship between the anal resting pressure and Holschneider's questionnaire (HQ). There was a statistically significant relationship between the area under the curve in the maximum voluntary squeeze pressure-time graph (AUC) and the HQ and Rintala's questionnaire (RQ). A statistically significant difference was found between HQ and RQ scores and high type and low type of ARMs. In our study, based on AM data, it was found that the use of HQ and RQ from the four SS we compared could be more effective in patients' follow-up. It was concluded that Peña's questionnaire and Krickenbeck's questionnaire should be used to determine the bowel management program of the patients rather than patients' follow-up. Level II.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patients undergoing surgery for anorectal malformation (ARM) may have defecation-related problems throughout their lives, even if they are perfect treated surgically. Assessment methods are needed to standardize the clinical outcomes of patients with ARM. The aim of this study was to compare the scoring systems (SS) with the anorectal manometry (AM) findings.
METHODS
METHODS
The data of patients operated on for ARM were examined. Holschneider's, Rintala's, Krickenbeck's and Peña's questionnaires were executed to the patients and AM was performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Our study was completed with 23 patients. There was a statistically significant relationship between the anal resting pressure and Holschneider's questionnaire (HQ). There was a statistically significant relationship between the area under the curve in the maximum voluntary squeeze pressure-time graph (AUC) and the HQ and Rintala's questionnaire (RQ). A statistically significant difference was found between HQ and RQ scores and high type and low type of ARMs.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In our study, based on AM data, it was found that the use of HQ and RQ from the four SS we compared could be more effective in patients' follow-up. It was concluded that Peña's questionnaire and Krickenbeck's questionnaire should be used to determine the bowel management program of the patients rather than patients' follow-up.
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Level II.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33825956
doi: 10.1007/s00383-021-04884-4
pii: 10.1007/s00383-021-04884-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1013-1019Références
Çavuşoğlu YH, Karaman A, Afşarlar ÇE et al (2013) Anorektal malformasyonlu hastaların inkontinans sonuçları ve tedaviye cevapları. Turkiye Klin J Med Sci. 33(6):1366–1370. https://doi.org/10.5336/medsci.2012-32789
doi: 10.5336/medsci.2012-32789
Brisighelli G, Macchini F, Consonni D, Di Cesare A, Morandi A, Leva E (2018) Continence after posterior sagittal anorectoplasty for anorectal malformations: comparison of different scores. J Pediatr Surg. 53(9):1727–1733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.12.020
doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.12.020
pubmed: 29370894
Kumar S, Al Ramadan S, Gupta V, Helmy S, Debnath P, Alkholy A (2010) Use of anorectal manometry for evaluation of postoperative results of patients with anorectal malformation: a study from Kuwait. J Pediatr Surg. 45(9):1843–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.04.012
doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.04.012
pubmed: 20850630
Stendal C (1997) Clinical procedures. In: Practical guide to gastrointestinal function testing. First. Blackwell Science, Tennessee, pp 135–246
Rintala RJ, Lindahl H (1995) Is normal bowel function possible after repair of intermediate and high anorectal malformations? J Pediatr Surg. 30(3):491–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(95)90064-0
doi: 10.1016/0022-3468(95)90064-0
pubmed: 7760250
Kyrklund K, Pakarinen MP, Rintala RJ (2017) Manometric findings in relation to functional outcomes in different types of anorectal malformations. J Pediatr Surg. 52(4):563–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.08.025
doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.08.025
pubmed: 27624562
Senel E, Demirbag S, Tiryaki T, Erdogan D, Cetinkursun S, Cakmak O (2007) Postoperative anorectal manometric evaluation of patients with anorectal malformation. Pediatr Int. 49(2):210–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-200X.2007.02342.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1442-200X.2007.02342.x
pubmed: 17445040
Keshtgar AS, Athanasakos E, Clayden GS, Ward HC (2008) Evaluation of outcome of anorectal anomaly in childhood: the role of anorectal manometry and endosonography. Pediatr Surg Int. 24(8):885–892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-008-2181-1
doi: 10.1007/s00383-008-2181-1
pubmed: 18512062
Tsuda T, Iwai N, Kimura O, Kubota Y, Ono S, Sasaki Y (2007) Bowel function after surgery for anorectal malformations in patients with tethered spinal cord. Pediatr Surg Int. 23(12):1171–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-007-2025-4
doi: 10.1007/s00383-007-2025-4
pubmed: 17924121
Hedlund H, Pena A, Rodriguez G, Maza J (1992) Long-term anorectal function in imperforate anus treated by a posterior sagittal anorectoplasty: manometric investigation. J Pediatr Surg. 27(7):906–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(92)90395-n
doi: 10.1016/0022-3468(92)90395-n
pubmed: 1640342
Pena A, Hong AR, Midulla P, Levitt M (2003) Reoperative surgery for anorectal anomalies. Semin Pediatr Surg. 12(2):118–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1055-8586(02)00022-7
doi: 10.1016/s1055-8586(02)00022-7
pubmed: 12728398
Hool GR, Lieber ML, Church JM (1999) Postoperative anal canal length predicts outcome in patients having sphincter repair for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 42(3):313–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02236345
doi: 10.1007/bf02236345
pubmed: 10223749
Schuster T, Lagler F, Pfluger T, Dietz HG, Joppich I (2001) A computerized vector manometry and MRI study in children following posterior sagittal anorectoplasty. Pediatr Surg Int. 17(1):48–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003830000437
doi: 10.1007/s003830000437
pubmed: 11294269
Pena A, Amroch D, Baeza C, Csury L, Rodriguez G (1993) The effects of the posterior sagittal approach on rectal function (experimental study). J Pediatr Surg. 28(6):773–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(93)90323-d
doi: 10.1016/0022-3468(93)90323-d
pubmed: 8331501
Pena A (1985) Surgical treatment of high imperforate anus. World J Surg. 9(2):236–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01656316
doi: 10.1007/bf01656316
pubmed: 3993054
Hedlund H, Pena A (1990) Does the distal rectal muscle in anorectal malformations have the functional properties of a sphincter? J Pediatr Surg. 25(9):985–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(90)90243-3
doi: 10.1016/0022-3468(90)90243-3
pubmed: 1976773
Husberg B, Lindahl H, Rintala R, Frenckner B (1992) High and intermediate imperforate anus: results after surgical correction with special respect to internal sphincter function. J Pediatr Surg. 27(2):185–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(92)90309-u
doi: 10.1016/0022-3468(92)90309-u
pubmed: 1564616
Rintala RJ, Lindahl HG (1999) Posterior sagittal anorectoplasty is superior to sacroperineal-sacroabdominoperineal pull-through: a long-term follow-up study in boys with high anorectal anomalies. J Pediatr Surg. 34(2):334–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3468(99)90203-8
doi: 10.1016/s0022-3468(99)90203-8
pubmed: 10052817
Holschneider AM, Ure BM, Pfrommer W, Meier-Ruge W (1996) Innervation patterns of the rectal pouch and fistula in anorectal malformations: a preliminary report. J Pediatr Surg. 31(3):357–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3468(96)90738-1
doi: 10.1016/s0022-3468(96)90738-1
pubmed: 8708903
Gangopadhyay AN, Upadhyaya VD, Gupta DK, Agarwal DK, Sharma SP, Arya NC (2008) Histology of the terminal end of the distal rectal pouch and fistula region in anorectal malformations. Asian J Surg. 31(4):211–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1015-9584(08)60089-5
doi: 10.1016/S1015-9584(08)60089-5
pubmed: 19010766
Başaklar A (2006) Anorektal malformasyonlar. In: Bebek ve Çocukların Cerrahi ve Ürolojik Hastalıkları, 1. Cilt. 1. Palme Yayıncılık, Ankara, pp 665–724
Benninga MA, Wijers OB, van der Hoeven CW et al (1994) Manometry, profilometry, and endosonography: normal physiology and anatomy of the anal canal in healthy children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 18(1):68–77
Sutphen J, Borowitz S, Ling W, Cox DJ, Kovatchev B (1997) Anorectal manometric examination in encopretic-constipated children. Dis Colon Rectum 40(9):1051–1055
doi: 10.1007/BF02050928
Kumar S, Ramadan S, Gupta V, Helmy S, Atta I, Alkholy A (2009) Manometric tests of anorectal function in 90 healthy children: a clinical study from Kuwait. J Pediat Surg 44(9):1786–1790
doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2009.01.008