METHODOLOGY: This was a prospective observational study. Convenience sampling method was used to recruit all HD patients who had definitive pullthrough from January 2019 to December2020 in our institution. High-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) was used to record anal resting pressure (ARP), length of high-pressure zone (HPZ), and presence/absence of recto-anal inhibitory reflex (RAIR). The Paediatric Incontinence/Constipation Scoring System (PICSS) was scored for all participants. PICSS is a validated questionnaire with scores mapped to an age-specific normogram to denote constipation, incontinence, and their combinations. Non-parametric and chi-square tests at significance p<0.05 were conducted to examine the relationship between PICSS categories and manometry findings. Ethical approval was obtained.
RESULTS: There were 32 participants (30 boys). Median age at participation was 26.5 months (range: 13.8-156). Twenty-four (75%) had transanal pullthrough, 8(25%) underwent Duhamel procedure. PICSS scored 10(31.3%) as normal, 8(25%) as constipation, 10(31.3%) as incontinent, and 4(12.5%) as mixed. RAIR was present in 12 patients (37.5%). HPZ, maximum ARP, mean ARP were comparable across all PICSS groups without statistically significant differences. Presence of RAIR was not significantly associated with any PICSS groups (p = 0.13).
CONCLUSION: Bowel function does not appear to be significantly associated with HRAM findings after definitive pullthrough for HD, but our study is limited by small sample size. RAIR was present in 37.5% patients after pullthrough.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
METHOD: This systematic review was conducted according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Reviews of Interventions and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify eligible studies. The main outcome variable was the preoperative assessment of patterns of blood supply to the colon and the impact of these patterns on anastomosis leak. The quality of bias control in the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the included studies, no meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. The study covered a period from 1978 to 2021. A significant degree of variation in the arterial and/or venous supply of the colon and rectum might influence anastomosis leak rates. Calcification in great blood vessels can be assessed with a preoperative computed tomography scan, which may predict anastomosis leak rates. This is supported by many experimental studies that showed increased rates of anastomosis leak after preoperative ischemia, but the extent of this impact is not well established.
CONCLUSION: Preoperative assessment of blood supply to the colon and rectum might help in planning the surgical intervention to reduce anastomosis leak rates. Calcium scoring of major arteries might predict anastomosis leak and thus play a crucial role in intraoperative decision-making.
METHODS: With ethical approval, this was a cross-sectional study involving 5 paediatric surgery referral centres in Malaysia, comparing the Kelly, Japanese Study Group of Anorectal Anomalies (JSGA), Holschneider and Krickenbeck bowel function questionnaires. We recruited patients aged 4-17 years, who had completed definitive surgery & stoma closure (where relevant) > 12 months prior to participation. We standardised outcomes of each scoring system into categories ('good', 'fair', 'poor' and 'very poor') to facilitate comparison. Parents & patients were surveyed and asked to rate the ease of understanding of each questionnaire. The difference in protocol scores rated between parents and patients were compared. Association of each bowel function scoring protocol with type of anomaly was assessed. Statistical significance was p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents and PubMed databases identified English-language randomized clinical trials comparing LARR and ORR. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects meta-analyses were performed due to heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of 14 randomized clinical trials that included 3843 rectal resections (LARR 2096, ORR 1747) were analyzed. The summary point estimates favored LARR for the intraoperative blood loss, commencement of oral intake, first bowel movement, and length of hospital stay. There was significantly longer duration of operating time of 38.29 minutes for the LARR group. Other outcome variables such as total complications, postoperative pain, postoperative ileus, abdominal abscesses, postoperative anastomotic leak, reintervention and postoperative mortality rates were found to have comparable outcomes for both cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: LARR was associated with significantly reduced blood loss, quicker resumption of oral intake, earlier return of gastrointestinal function, and shorter length of hospital stay at the expense of significantly longer operating time. Postoperative morbidity and mortality and analgesia requirement for both these groups were comparable. LARR seems to be a safe and effective alternative to ORR; however, it needs to be performed in established colorectal units with experienced laparoscopic surgeons.