Anal Resting Research Articles

Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: functional outcome after low anterior resection and colorectal anastomosis without a reservoir.

OBJECTIVE: The anal sphincters, neorectal capacity and motility may be affected by injury to the autonomic nerves during rectal resection. Anorectal function also depends on the method used for restoration of intestinal continuity, and colonic reservoir reconstruction has been recommended in ultralow anastomosis. This study was undertaken to evaluate the results after nerve preserving mesorectal excision and colorectal anastomosis without a reservoir. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-five consecutive patients who underwent low anterior resection with primary healing of the anastomosis, were included. Anal manometry with stationary pull through technique, rectal volumetry and symptom scoring (written questionnaires with visual analogue scales) were performed prior to and 12 months after surgery. Anal sphincter function was evaluated in all patients, but five patients with a colonic reservoir were excluded from the other evaluations. Thirty patients entered the main study; 14 patients having a total mesorectal excision (TME) and a low anastomosis (LA) (4-6 cm) and 16 patients a partial mesorectal excision (PME) and a high anastomosis (HA) (7-11 cm from the anal verge). RESULTS: Anal resting and squeeze pressure and rectal sensibility (threshold volume) were unchanged after the operation. The rectal volume eliciting urge to defecate was reduced from median 95 ml to 70 ml (P < 0.01), and the maximum tolerable rectal volume was reduced from 200 to 135 ml (P < 0.01) after the operation. The maximum tolerable volume was significantly lower in patients with LA than in patients with HA (P < 0.01). Overall functional results were good. The patients reported problems with complete bowel emptying (median VAS-score reduction from 90 to 60, P < 0.01), and minor incontinence problems (median VAS-score reduction from 100 to 90, P= 0.03). The reduction of VAS-scores was more pronounced in LA than HA patients (without reaching statistical significance). CONCLUSIONS: Anal sphincter function was preserved after mesorectal excision. Neorectal capacity was reduced, most pronounced in patients with LA. The overall functional results were satisfactory and slightly better in patients with HA than in those with LA.

Total colectomy and J-pouch ileorectal anastomosis for obstructed tumours of the rectosigmoid junction.

Subtotal colectomy with ileosigmoid or ileorectal anastomosis is one of the standard procedures for obstructed tumours of the left colon. The lower the level of the anastomosis, the greater the number of bowel motions per day. The aim of the present study was to assess whether an ileal pouch-rectal anastomosis is associated with fewer bowel motions per day. In four patients with obstructed carcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction and upper rectum, a total colectomy with removal of the upper rectum for adequate tumour clearance was used, followed by construction of a 10 cm ileal J-pouch that was subsequently anastomosed to the distal rectal stump. Postoperative recovery was uneventful in all patients. At 3 months postoperatively, anorectal manometry showed anal resting and squeeze pressures at lower normal limits and a neorectal capacity ranging from 160 to 310 mL. One year postoperatively, all patients experienced one to three normal bowel motions daily and no episodes of incontinence. Total colectomy with ileal J-pouch-rectal anastomosis is a reasonable operative alternative in cases with obstructed tumours of the rectosigmoid junction, which necessitate removal of the upper rectum.

Functional results after laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse

We investigated the functional results after laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse in 29 patients at least 12 months postoperatively. Twenty patients were evaluated completely pre- and postoperatively (median 22 months postoperatively, range 12 to 54 months). Six patients were interviewed by telephone, two patients were lost to follow-up, and one patient died of causes unrelated to rectal prolapse. Patients underwent a proctologic examination, anoscopy, rigid sigmoidoscopy, fluoroscopic defecography, and anorectal manometry pre- and postoperatively, and an additional standardized interview postoperatively. Anorectal manometry showed a significant increase in maximum anal resting and squeeze pressures postoperatively (resting pressure 72 ± 8 vs. 95 ± 13 mm Hg, pre- vs. postoperatively; P = 0.046; squeeze pressure 105 ± 17 vs. 142 ± 19 mm Hg, pre- vs. postoperatively; P = 0.035), and continence improved postoperatively (Wexner incontinence score 6.0 ± 1.0 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8 pre- vs. postoperatively, P = 0.02). Twenty (77%) of 26 patients were satisfied with the operative result, but functional morbidity was observed in four patients, with two patients complaining of severe evacuation problems. Rectal prolapse recurred in one patient 42 months postoperatively (recurrence rate 1 [3.8%] of 26 patients). Functional results were very similar to those obtained after open rectopexy, with symptoms of prolapse and incontinence improved in the great majority of patients.

A prospective cohort study of women after primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter laceration

Objective: This study was undertaken to prospectively assess subjective anorectal symptoms by questionnaire and to prospectively assess the integrity of the anal sphincter by physical and ultrasonographic examination in women with and without obstetric anal sphincter laceration. Study Design: Fifteen subjects who sustained obstetric anal sphincter lacerations at the time of vaginal delivery were matched with 15 control subjects and followed up prospectively. Women underwent physical and ultrasonographic evaluations and answered questionnaires regarding anorectal symptoms at 6 weeks and at 4 months post partum. Data were evaluated with the Fisher exact test, the Wilcoxon exact and signed rank tests, and the McNemar test. Results: On postpartum examination the subjects with lacerations had more separated sphincters and decreased anal resting and squeeze tones with respect to control subjects (P < .05). According to ultrasonographic evaluation the anal sphincters were more commonly disrupted in the laceration group than in the control group (external anal sphincter, 40% vs 20%; P = .43; and internal anal sphincter, 47% vs 7%; P = .035). Subjective rating of fecal incontinence was significantly greater in the laceration group than in the control group (P < .05). There was no correlation between fecal incontinence symptoms and the integrity of the external anal sphincter. At the 4-month visit, fecal incontinence was resolved in 36% of subjects; however, continued anorectal dysfunction was reported by 43% of subjects in the laceration group versus only 7% of the control subjects (P = .08). Conclusion: Reports of fecal incontinence were significantly greater among women with a history of primarily repaired obstetric anal sphincter lacerations than among control subjects. Ultrasonographic examination revealed separated anal sphincters in 40% of the women with obstetric anal sphincter lacerations, despite repair at the time of delivery. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:1317-23.)

Resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse. The laparoscopic approach.

Resection rectopexy through open laparotomy is an established procedure for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Resection rectopexy was successfully performed in 10 multiparous women by the laparoscopic approach (LAP), and the results were compared to those of eight women with laparotomy resection rectopexy (OPEN). Preoperative and postoperative assessment included anorectal manometry, defecography, and measurement of large-bowel transit. The duration of the operation was longer in the LAP than in the OPEN group (p < 0.01). Morbidity was lower (p < 0.01) and hospital stay was shorter (p < 0.001) after the LAP than in the OPEN group. Prolapse was cured in all cases. Postoperatively, anal resting and squeeze pressures and rectal compliance increased significantly in both groups of patients (p = 0.007, p = 0.003, and p < 0.001, respectively). In all patients, the operation resulted in acceleration of large-bowel transit (p < 0.001) and in more obtuse anorectal angles at rest (p = 0.007). In addition, sampling events were observed more commonly (p = 0.008) postoperatively. Preoperatively, incontinence was present in 13 patients (seven LAP and six OPEN) and persisted in four of them after rectopexy (two LAP and two OPEN). Resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse can be performed safely via the laparoscopic route. Recovery is uneventful and of shorter duration after the laparoscopic than after the open approach. Similarly satisfactory functional results are obtained with both procedures.

Anorectal function and morphology in patients with sporadic proctalgia fugax.

The pathophysiology of sporadic proctalgia fugax remains unknown. This study investigates whether patients with this syndrome exhibit alterations in anal function and morphology. Eighteen patients with sporadic proctalgia fugax and 18 sex-matched and age-matched healthy controls were studied. Manometric studies investigated anal resting and squeeze pressures, the rectoanal inhibitory reflex, rectal compliance, and smooth muscle response to edrophonium chloride administration. External and internal sphincter thickness was measured endosonographically. Patients had slightly higher (P = 0.0291) anal resting pressures (65.5 +/- 11.4 mmHg) than controls (56 +/- 9.9 mmHg). However, anal squeeze pressure, sphincter relaxation during rectal distention, and rectal compliance were similar in both groups, and no alterations were detected in external and internal anal sphincter thickness. Edrophonium chloride administration was followed by sharp postrelaxation contractions in two patients, whereas anal function remained unaltered in controls. Acute episodes of proctalgia, which occurred in two patients while under study, were associated with a rise in anal resting tone and an increase in slow wave amplitude. In the resting state, patients with proctalgia fugax have normal anorectal function and morphology. However, they may exhibit a motor abnormality of the anal smooth muscle during an acute attack.

Clinical and physiologic effects of biofeedback in outlet obstruction constipation.

We report the results of biofeedback (BF) on patients with outlet obstruction defecation (OOC), including those with and without measurable paradoxical puborectalis contractions (PP). Clinical and anorectal physiologic parameters (ARP) were assessed one week before and after a standardized course of BF. Sixty-two consecutive patients (24 men, 38 women; mean age, 48 (standard error of the mean, 2.3) years) were recruited. All had persistent constipation despite six weeks of dietary fiber supplements. Colonic inertia was excluded by transit marker studies. Defecating proctography excluded anatomic abnormalities causing outlet obstruction. Patients underwent four outpatient sessions of biofeedback, each session lasting one hour. After BF, 56 patients (90.3 percent) were subjectively improved. Frequency of spontaneous bowel movements were significantly increased (P = 0.003). Frequency of laxative-induced (P = 0.004) and enema-induced (P = 0.005) stools were reduced. Anal resting (P = 0.04) and squeeze (P = 0.002) pressures were increased. Number of patients with PP was reduced from 40 to 31 (P = 0.004). Presence of PP did not affect response to BF. There were no differences in ARP between the 56 patients who improved and the 6 who did not. There were no side effects or clinical regressions after a mean follow-up of 14.9 (standard error of the means, 0.9) months. BF effectively treated OOC in 90.3 percent, regardless of PP. Anal pressures were increased, and PP was decreased.

Recovery of anal sphincter function following transabdominal repair of rectal prolapse

Twenty-eight patients with complete rectal prolapse underwent anorectal manometry before and 6 months and 1-2 years after abdominal rectopexy and sigmoid resection in a study of the mechanisms responsible for postoperatively improved anal continence. Preoperatively, 22 patients reported defective and control. Seven patients (all with minor incontinence) regained normal control and eight other patients achieved improved continence after surgery. Anal resting, squeeze, and voluntary contraction pressures were significantly lower for defective than for normal control, with a significant rise in these pressures at 6 months after the operation, except for those incontinent patients in whom continence was not improved. No further pressure rise was seen later. Improvement of continence was not accompanied by changes in rectal sensation or reflexive functions of the internal anal sphincter. These results suggest that recovery of the resting and voluntary contraction functions of the sphincter muscles was the cause of continence improvement observed after surgery. Anal manometry was unable to predict outcome of function. Therefore, supplementary procedures for restoration of continence are not advisable, although patients with only minor incontinence are likely to regain full continence after rectopexy alone.

Anorectal dysfunction in patients with urologic disturbance due to multiple sclerosis

Anorectal function was evaluated in 11 patients with voiding dysfunction due to multiple sclerosis. In six patients with constipation, three also had symptoms of obstructed defecation and one patient was incontinent due to stercoral diarrhea. One patient was only fecal incontinent and one patient had obstructed defecation as the only symptom. Three patients had no anorectal symptoms. Anal manometry in the women compared with a control group revealed significant lower anal resting and squeeze pressures, although no significant difference of rectal sensation to distention with air was found. Pudendal nerve terminal latencies were obtained in seven patients and were all normal. In four patients latency could not be demonstrated due to poor contraction of the sphincter on stimulation of the pudendal nerve. Two of these patients were incontinent and two had both constipation and obstructed defecation. It is concluded that patients with voiding symptoms due to multiple sclerosis often reveal anorectal symptoms or motility disorders. Although anal sphincter function is reduced, fecal incontinence is not prevalent in this group. The reason for this lies probably in the fact that many of the patients are constipated, thus securing fecal continence.

Reliability of anal pressure measurements

This study investigates whether measurements of anal sphincter pressure and length are reproducible and whether visual analyses of manometric tracings are reliable. Manometric studies were performed on three different days in 10 male and 10 female healthy subjects with the use of a pneumohydraulic capillary perfusion system. There was complete agreement between both observers in the analysis of anal resting and squeeze pressure as well as sphincter length. The pressure profiles from different days correlated significantly (P less than 0.01) with each other regardless of whether the studies were performed in the prepared or unprepared bowel. However, anal sphincter length and the quality of the anorectal inhibitory reflex varied greatly on different days. Male and female subjects showed major differences in the capacity of the anal sphincter to contract voluntarily (P less than 0.01), but resting tone and sphincter length were comparable in the two groups. It is concluded that pressure determinations in the anal canal are reliable and reproducible, but that alterations in the quality of the anorectal reflex need to be confirmed by repeated measurements before pathology is diagnosed.

Disorders of impaired fecal control a clinical and manometric study

Two hundred eight patients with retention disorders have been studied. Most frequent causes were idiopathic (107), iatrogenic (57), and obstetric (33). Twenty-five patients experienced soiling, 31 had insufficient function, and 152 complained of incontinence. Seventy percent of patients with idiopathic incontinence did not experience urge, compared with 38 percent with iatrogenic and only 3 percent with obstetric incontinence. The incidence of prolapse was 58 percent in patients with idiopathic incontinence, 20 percent in patients with iatrogenic incontinence, and only 3 percent in patients with obstetric incontinence. The authors conclude that the function of the puborectalis sling is to create the anorectal angle to evoke the feeling of urge and to support intra-abdominal contents and, furthermore, that fecal incontinence after anorectal surgery was likely caused by denervation. Anal resting and squeeze pressures varied widely. There was a huge overlap in the different groups. Mean resting and squeeze pressures were 9.5 kPa and 9.4 kPa, respectively, in controls, 4.8 kPa and 10.3 kPa, respectively, in the soiling group, 7.1 and 6.1 kPa, respectively, in the insufficient group, and 5.1 and 2.7 kPa, respectively, in the incontinent group. An incontinent external sphincter function could be defined as a function of the external sphincter causing a pressure increase of 5 kPa or less during straining. The ability to retain feces, therefore, is based on external sphincter function. Anal manometry is, indeed, a suitable technique to determine anal sphincter functions, but the presence of a retention disorder cannot definitely be determined. Its clinical application remains under discussion.

Anorectal function after low anterior resection for carcinoma.

Anorectal function was studied in 13 patients with carcinoma of the rectum 6-12 cm from the anal verge, which was treated by low anterior resection (LAR), and in 13 age- and sex-matched control subjects. Patients were studied before and 3 and 12 months after operation. Anal resting and squeeze pressures were the same in patients and control subjects and were decreased only moderately after surgery, with a slight increase in maximum squeeze pressure 12 months after operation. Three of the patients had an inverse rectoanal reflex before operation, and two had no reflex at all. After operation, only two patients showed a normal rectoanal inhibitory reflex, and none gained a normal reflex within 12 months after surgery. Rectal compliance was significantly reduced before operation, compared to control subjects, and was still significantly lower 3 months after operation. After 12 months, however, rectal compliance had returned to preoperative level in all but two patients with coloanal anastomosis, who still emptied the bowel 4-5 times daily.