Colonic pouch reconstruction after low anterior rectal resection

Abstract

For many decades the coloanal anastomosis was traditionally created as an end-to-end anastomosis. Despite successful surgical restoration of the intestinal passage after low rectal resection and total mesorectal excision (TME), physiological continence and evacuation function cannot be achieved in many cases using end-to-end anastomosis. Subsequent complaints, such as fecal incontinence and urge problems, evacuation difficulties and high stool frequency (so-called low anterior resection syndrome, LARS) are the result. The combination of symptoms after TME known as LARS is described in the literature in up to 60% of cases. The increased occurrence of the imperative urge to defecate, frequent bowel movements and problems with fecal incontinence motivated surgeons to look for alternative anastomosis techniques. Side-to-end anastomosis, coloplasty pouch and colonic J‑pouch have been shown in various studies to be superior to end-to-end anastomosis in terms of functional results. Current studies could show that the side-to-end anastomosis (even if this is not apouch in the actual sense) and the two pouch techniques show comparable results in terms of functional outcome and the rate of anastomotic leakage. The alternative to coloanal anastomosis after TME is the abdominoperineal resection. Most, especially younger patients, prefer to try to maintain continence with the risk of the described functional problems. If the patients are well selected, TME can be carried out with the current techniques in such away that continuity is maintained and agood defecation function is achieved for alarge proportion of patients using the pouch-anal anastomosis or the side-to-end techniques.