Use of the gluteus maximus muscle as the neosphincter for restoration of anal function after abdominoperineal resection.

Department of General Surgery, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Clínica de Las Américas, Diagonal 75B #2A-80/308, Medellín, Colombia, .
Techniques in Coloproctology (Impact Factor: 1.54). 12/2012; DOI: 10.1007/s10151-012-0961-z
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate complications and long-term functional outcome in patients who had sphincter reconstruction using the gluteus maximus muscle as the neosphincter after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer treatment. METHODS: Seven patients underwent reconstruction from 2000 to 2010. First, the sigmoid colon was brought down to the perineum as a perineal colostomy, with the procedure protected by a loop ileostomy. Reconstruction of the sphincter mechanism using the gluteus maximus took place 3 months later, and after another 8-12 weeks, the loop ileostomy was closed. We studied the functional outcome of these interventions with follow-up interviews of patients and objectively assessed anorectal function using manometry and the Cleveland Clinic Florida (Jorge-Wexner) fecal incontinence score. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 56 months (median 47; range 10-123 months). One patient had a perianal wound infection and another had fibrotic stricture in the colocutaneous anastomosis that required several digital dilatations. Anorectal manometry at 3-month follow-up showed resting pressures from 10 to 18 mm Hg and voluntary contraction pressures from 68 to 187 mm Hg. Four patients had excellent sphincter function (Jorge-Wexner scores ≤5). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results show that sphincter reconstruction by means of gluteus maximus transposition can be effective in restoring gastrointestinal continuity and recovering fecal continence in patients who have undergone APR with permanent colostomy for rectal cancer. Furthermore, the reconstruction procedure can be performed 2-4 years after the APR.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A new operation is described in which a neorectum and neoanal sphincter mechanism have been constructed to restore gastrointestinal continuity and continence in a patient who required abdominoperineal excision of the rectum for a low rectal cancer. The neorectum was constructed by bringing colon down into the pelvis and anastomosing it to the perineal skin. The neoanal sphincter was fashioned from a transposed gracilis muscle and was activated electrically by a totally implanted stimulator. A period of chronic low-frequency stimulation altered the muscle characteristics and enabled the neosphincter to contract continually without fatigue. The patient was continent when the stimulator was turned on and was able to void when the stimulator was turned off.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 08/1990; 33(7):561-5. · 3.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To avoid abdominal colostomy and improve quality of life, several types of anorectal reconstruction following abdominoperineal resection have been proposed. The aim of this study was to assess functional results and the quality of life of patients with very low rectal cancer after abdominoperineal resection and neosphincter reconstruction by perineal colostomy with a colonic muscular cuff. Twenty-seven patients who had undergone neosphincter reconstruction with a perineal spiral cuff plasty after abdominoperineal resection were included in a retrospective study to evaluate long-term outcome. The functional results were analyzed using anal manometry and the continence score. The quality of life was measured with the global and disease-specific questionnaires European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and C38. Median follow-up time was 105 months (range, 18-185 mo). The median Holschneider continence score of the study sample was 13 (continent), with a range of 10 (partially continent) to 16 (continent), thus demonstrating satisfactory functional results. The functional assessment was completed by neosphincter manometry which revealed a median resting vs compression pressure of 40 vs 96 cmH2O with a range of 5 to 81 cmH2O vs 49 to 364 cmH2O. The quality-of-life analyses showed an above-average score for both global health and disease-specific status. Spiral cuff colostomy with reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection of very low distal rectal cancer offers a surgical option for a selective group of patients with reasonable functional long-term results and an improved quality of life.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 09/2010; 53(9):1272-9. · 3.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We describe the relationship between anorectal manometry, fecal incontinence severity, and findings at endoanal ultrasound. A total of 351 women completed the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, underwent anorectal manometry, and endoanal ultrasound. Severity index and manometry pressures in 203 women with intact sphincters on ultrasound were compared with pressures in 148 women with sphincter defects. Relationships between resting and squeeze pressures, severity index, and size of sphincter defects were evaluated. Mean severity index in patients with and without sphincter defect was 35.7 vs. 36.7 (not significant). Worsening index correlated with worsening mean and maximum resting pressure (P < 0.0001). Differences were observed in mean and maximum resting pressure between the patients with and without sphincter defects (26.6 vs. 37.2, P < 0.0001; 39.4 vs. 51.7, P < 0.001). Resting pressures correlated with the sizes of defect (P < 0.0001). Patients with and without sphincter defects had similar severity scores, but patients with defects had a significant decrease in resting pressures. Patients with larger sphincter defects had lower severity scores and resting pressures. Until a manometry cutoff can be set to discriminate between absence and presence of defects, both manometry and ultrasound should be offered to patients with history of anal trauma.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2008; 51(7):1010-4. · 3.34 Impact Factor


Available from
May 26, 2014