Article

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: 1.34). 12/2012; 17(4). 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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Rodrigo Castano, Dec 25, 2013
1 Follower
 · 
130 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many rectal cancer patients undergo abdominoperineal excision worldwide every year. Various procedures to restore perineal (pseudo-) continence, referred to as total anorectal reconstruction, have been proposed. The best technique, however, has not yet been defined. In this study, the different reconstruction techniques with regard to morbidity, functional outcome and quality of life were analysed. Technical and timing issues (i.e. whether the definitive procedure should be performed synchronously or be delayed), oncological safety, economical aspects as well as possible future improvements are further discussed. A MEDLINE and EMBASE search was conducted to identify the pertinent multilingual literature between 1989 and 2013. All publications meeting the defined inclusion/exclusion criteria were eligible for analysis. Dynamic graciloplasty, artificial bowel sphincter, circular smooth muscle cuff or gluteoplasty result in median resting and squeezing neo-anal pressures that equate to the measurements found in incontinent patients. However, quality of life was generally stated to be good by patients who had undergone the procedures, despite imperfect continence, faecal evacuation problems and a considerable associated morbidity. Many patients developed an alternative perception for the urge to defecate that decisively improved functional outcome. Theoretical calculations suggested cost-effectiveness of total anorectal reconstruction compared well to life with a permanent colostomy. Many patients would be highly motivated to have their abdominal replaced by a functional perineal colostomy. Given the considerable morbidity and questionable functional outcome of current reconstruction technique improvements are required. Tissue engineering might be an option to design an anatomically and physiologically matured, and customised continence organ.
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease 11/2014; 30(3). DOI:10.1007/s00384-014-2065-x · 2.42 Impact Factor