One-stage repair of anorectal malformations in females with vestibular fistula: a systematic review and meta-analysis

European Reference Network eUROGEN Guidelines on the Management of Anorectal Malformations, Part II: Treatment

INTRODUCTION

 Anorectal malformations (ARMs) are rare birth defects affecting the anorectum and oftentimes the genitourinary region. The management of ARM patients is complex and requires highly specialized surgical and medical care. The European Reference Network eUROGEN for rare and complex urogenital conditions aimed to develop comprehensive guidelines for the management of ARM applicable on a European level.

METHODS

 The Dutch Quality Standard for ARM served as the basis for the development of guidelines. Literature was searched in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane. The ADAPTE method was utilized to incorporate the newest available evidence. A panel of 15 experts from seven European countries assessed currency, acceptability, and applicability of recommendations. Recommendations from the Dutch Quality Standard were adapted, adopted, or rejected and recommendations were formed considering the current evidence, expert opinion, and the European context.

RESULTS

 Surgical and medical treatment of ARM, postoperative instructions, toilet training, and management of fecal and urinary incontinence were addressed. Seven new studies were identified. The panel adapted 23 recommendations, adopted 3, and developed 8 de novo. The overall level of newly found evidence was considered low.

CONCLUSION

 Treatment of ARM patients requires a multidisciplinary team and expertise about anatomical and surgical aspects of the disease, as well as long-term follow-up. This guideline offers recommendations for surgical and medical treatment of ARM and associated complications, according to the best available evidence and applicable on a European level.

Current practice of diagnosis and treatment for rectourethral fistula in male patients with anorectal malformation: a multicenter questionnaire survey in Japan

PURPOSE

Surgical procedures for anorectoplasty for anorectal malformations (ARMs), particularly rectourethral fistula (RUF), depend on the institution. We investigated the diagnosis and treatment of RUF in male patients with ARMs in Japan using a questionnaire survey.

METHODS

An online survey inquiring about the diagnosis and treatment (diagnostic modalities, surgical approaches, fistula dissection devices, and fistula closure techniques) of each type of ARM in male patients was conducted among institutional members of the Japanese Study Group of Anorectal Anomalies. Fisher's exact test was used to compare surgical methods between posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) and laparoscopy-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP).

RESULTS

Sixty-one institutions (100%) completed the survey. LAARP was the preferred approach for high-type ARM (75.4%). PSARP was preferred for intermediate-type ARM (59.0%). Monopolar devices were most commonly used (72.1%) for RUF dissection. Blunt dissection was more frequent in the PSARP group (PSARP vs. LAARP: 55.6 vs. 20.0%, p < 0.005). Cystoscopy/urethroscopy to confirm the extent of dissection was used more frequently in the LAARP group (70.0% vs. 25.0%, p < 0.005). Clips and staplers were used more frequently in the LAARP group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Distinct fistula management strategies for PSARP and LAARP were revealed. Further studies are needed to investigate the postoperative outcomes associated with these practices.

A Population-Based Cohort Study on Diagnosis and Early Management of Anorectal Malformation in the UK and Ireland

BACKGROUND

This study describes the presentation and initial management of anorectal malformation (ARM); evaluating the frequency, causes and consequences of late diagnosis.

METHODS

A prospective, population cohort study was undertaken for newly diagnosed ARMs in the UK and Ireland from 01/10/2015 and 30/09/2016. Follow-up was completed at one year. Data are presented as n (%), appropriate statistical methods used. Factors associated with late diagnosis; defined as: detection of ARM either following discharge or more than 72 h after birth were assessed with univariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Twenty six centres reported on 174 cases, 158 of which were classified according to the type of malformation and 154 had completed surgical data. Overall, perineal fistula was the most commonly detected anomaly 43/158 (27%); of the 41 of these children undergoing surgery, 15 (37%) had a stoma formed. 21/154 (14%, CI95{9-20}) patients undergoing surgery experienced post-operative complications. Thirty-nine (22%) were diagnosed late and 12 (7%) were detected >30 days after birth. Factors associated with late diagnosis included female sex (OR 2.06; 1.0-4.26), having a visible perineal opening (OR 2.63; 1.21-5.67) and anomalies leading to visible meconium on the perineum (OR 18.74; 2.47-141.73). 56/174 (32%) had a diagnosis of VACTERL association (vertebral, anorectal, cardiac, tracheal, oesophageal, renal and limb); however, not all infants were investigated for commonly associated anomalies. 51/140 (36%) had a cardiac anomaly detected on echocardiogram.

CONCLUSION

There is room for improvement within the care for infants born with ARM in the UK and Ireland. Upskilling those performing neonatal examination to allow timely diagnosis, instruction of universal screening for associated anomalies and further analysis of the factors leading to clinically unnecessary stoma formation are warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II (Prospective Cohort Study <80% follow-up).

Sparing the Perineal Body: A Modification of the Posterior Sagittal Anorectoplasty for Anorectal Malformations with Rectovestibular Fistulae

BACKGROUND

 The posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) used to repair an anorectal malformation (ARM) with a rectovestibular fistula involves incising the perineal body skin and the sphincter muscles and a posterior sagittal incision to the coccyx. Perineal body dehiscence is the most common and morbid complication post-PSARP which can have a negative impact on future bowel control. With consideration of all the other approaches described to repair this anomaly, we developed a perineal body sparing modification of the standard PSARP technique.

METHODS

 Four patients with ARM with a rectovestibular fistula were repaired with a perineal body sparing modified PSARP at a single institution between 2020 and 2021. The incision used was limited, involving only the length of the anal sphincter, with no incision anterior or posterior to the planned anoplasty. Dissection of the distal rectum and fistula was performed without cutting the perineal body. Once the distal rectum was mobilized off the posterior vaginal wall and out of the vestibule, the perineal body muscles, where the fistula had been, were reinforced and an anoplasty was then performed.

RESULTS

 Operative time was the same as for a standard PSARP. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. No postoperative dilations were performed. All patients healed well with an excellent cosmetic result. All are too young to assess for bowel control.

CONCLUSION

 We present a new technique, a modification of the traditional PSARP for rectovestibular fistula, which spares the perineal body. This approach could eliminate the potential complication of perineal body dehiscence.

Sparing the Perineal Body: A Modification of the Posterior Sagittal Anorectoplasty for Anorectal Malformations with Rectovestibular Fistulae

BACKGROUND

 The posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) used to repair an anorectal malformation (ARM) with a rectovestibular fistula involves incising the perineal body skin and the sphincter muscles and a posterior sagittal incision to the coccyx. Perineal body dehiscence is the most common and morbid complication post-PSARP which can have a negative impact on future bowel control. With consideration of all the other approaches described to repair this anomaly, we developed a perineal body sparing modification of the standard PSARP technique.

METHODS

 Four patients with ARM with a rectovestibular fistula were repaired with a perineal body sparing modified PSARP at a single institution between 2020 and 2021. The incision used was limited, involving only the length of the anal sphincter, with no incision anterior or posterior to the planned anoplasty. Dissection of the distal rectum and fistula was performed without cutting the perineal body. Once the distal rectum was mobilized off the posterior vaginal wall and out of the vestibule, the perineal body muscles, where the fistula had been, were reinforced and an anoplasty was then performed.

RESULTS

 Operative time was the same as for a standard PSARP. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. No postoperative dilations were performed. All patients healed well with an excellent cosmetic result. All are too young to assess for bowel control.

CONCLUSION

 We present a new technique, a modification of the traditional PSARP for rectovestibular fistula, which spares the perineal body. This approach could eliminate the potential complication of perineal body dehiscence.

Early postoperative feeding in single-stage repair of anorectal malformation with vestibular or perineal fistula is not associated with increased wound complications

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study is to assess the postoperative outcomes of single-stage repair of anorectal malformations with vestibular (VF) or perineal fistula (PF) and early initiation of postoperative feeding.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing single-stage repair of isolated low anorectal malformations (VF and PF) from 2017 to 2020 was conducted. All patients underwent an anterior anoplasty with complete mobilization of the rectal fistula, or posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP), without protective colostomy. The variables examined include age, timing of postoperative feeding initiation, length of stay (LOS), and complications.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients with VF or PF underwent a single-stage repair. 12/19 (63%) patients were female. All 7 males and 9/12 females had a PF. The range of age at surgery was 2 days to 3 years with median age of 92 days [IQR 1,3: 9,193]. The median postoperative day for initiation of feeds was day 0 [IQR 1,3: 0,1] and median LOS was 1 day [IQR 1,3: 1,4.5]. 18/19 (95%) patients were evaluated in follow-up and there were no wound infections, wound dehiscences, or recurrent fistulas. Within 90 days postoperatively, no patients were seen in the emergency department for postoperative issues. Within 6 months, 2/19 (11%) patients required an unplanned return to the operating room for anal dilation.

CONCLUSION

In single-stage repair of isolated low anorectal malformations, VF and PF, early initiation of postoperative feeding is safe, results in a short length of stay, and does not lead to increased wound complications. Early enteral feeding eliminates the need for parenteral nutrition and central venous access, and their associated complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Single-stage procedures for anorectal malformations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to describe all published studies of single-stage procedures for anorectal malformations and to perform a meta-analysis of studies that compared single-stage to staged procedures.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in Pubmed, Medline, Embase and CENTRAL. Meta-analysis was performed in RevMan and expressed as forest plots with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were included in the narrative synthesis. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis, representing 537 patients. The majority (70%) of patients included in this meta-analysis had either perineal or vestibular fistulas. Surgical site infection (SSI) was defined as any reported infection involving the neoanus (both superficial infection and dehiscence) and occurred in 51 of the 291 patients who underwent single-stage procedures, and 26 of the 244 patients who underwent staged procedure. Meta-analysis showed a 2.2 times higher risk of surgical site infection (SSI) amongst patients who undergo single-stage procedures (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.26, 3.92). Six of the 293 patients (2%) who underwent single-stage procedures required a rescue ostomy for wound dehiscence. In LMIC the risk of wound dehiscence was three-fold higher in single-stage (36/202) compared to staged procedures (12/126) (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.42, 6.63). In HIC there was no evidence of an increased risk of wound dehiscence in patients who underwent a single-stage (15/91) compared to a staged procedure (14/118) (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.65, 3.51). There is no evidence of a difference between single-stage versus staged procedures with regards to functional outcomes including voluntary bowel movements (79/90 versus 111/128), soiling (24/165 versus 20/203) or constipation (27/90 versus 36/128).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides further evidence that single-stage procedures for selected patients with anorectal malformations are safe. Whilst there is evidence of an increased risk of SSI, this did not translate to a significant difference in long-term functional outcomes.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Bowel function and associated risk factors at preschool and early childhood age in children with anorectal malformation type rectovestibular fistula: An ARM-Net consortium study

BACKGROUND

Outcome of patients operated for anorectal malformation (ARM) type rectovestibular fistula (RVF) is generally considered to be good. However, large multi-center studies are scarce, mostly describing pooled outcome of different ARM-types, in adult patients. Therefore, counseling parents concerning the bowel function at early age is challenging. Aim of this study was to evaluate bowel function of RVF-patients at preschool/early childhood age and determine risk factors for poor functional outcome.

METHODS

A multi-center cohort study was performed. Patient characteristics, associated anomalies, sacral ratio, surgical procedures, post-reconstructive complications, one-year constipation, and Bowel Function Score (BFS) at 4-7 years of follow-up were registered. Groups with below normal (BFS < 17; subgroups 'poor' ≤ 11, and 'fair' 11 < BFS < 17) and good outcome (BFS ≥ 17) were formed. Univariable analyses were performed to detect risk factors for outcome.

RESULTS

The study included 111 RVF-patients. Median BFS was 16 (range 6-20). The 'below normal' group consisted of 61 patients (55.0%). Overall, we reported soiling, fecal accidents, and constipation in 64.9%, 35.1% and 70.3%, respectively. Bowel management was performed in 23.4% of patients. Risk factors for poor outcome were tethered cord and low sacral ratio, while sacral anomalies, low sacral ratio, prior enterostomy, post-reconstructive complications, and one-year constipation were for being on bowel management.

CONCLUSIONS

Although median BFS at 4-7 year follow-up is nearly normal, the majority of patients suffers from some degree of soiling and constipation, and almost 25% needs bowel management. Several factors were associated with poor bowel function outcome and bowel management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

30-day postoperative outcomes of neonatal versus delayed anoplasty for perineal and vestibular fistulas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the postoperative outcomes of neonatal versus delayed repair of rectoperineal and rectovestibular fistulae using a multi-center pediatric colorectal specific database. We hypothesized that the incidence of 30-day postoperative complications is not significantly different between these two surgical treatment strategies.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, observational study of the Pediatric Colorectal and Pelvic Learning Consortium (PCPLC) database. We included any patient from the database that underwent primary surgical repair of a rectoperineal or rectovestibular fistula. Neonatal repair was defined as occurring within 14 days of birth, and delayed repair as occurring after that period. The primary outcome was the occurrence of postoperative complications within 30 days.

RESULTS

164 patients were included in the study (123 rectoperineal, 41 rectovestibular); the majority (81%) were repaired in a delayed fashion. Patients that underwent delayed repair had lower birth weights and were more likely to be female than those that underwent neonatal repair. Wound breakdown/dehiscence was the most common complication in both groups (Delayed 5.3% v. Neonatal, 6.5%). We found no significant difference in the incidence of any postoperative complication between groups (Delayed 6.0 v. Neonatal 6.5%, p = 1.0).

CONCLUSION

We concluded there was no significant difference in the incidence of 30-day postoperative complications for neonatal versus delayed repair of rectoperineal and rectovestibular fistulae, suggesting that both strategies are safe and may have excellent short-term outcomes in appropriately selected patients.

Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) prevents wound dehiscence following posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP): An exploratory case-control study

BACKGROUND

Wound dehiscence (WD) of the anocutaneous anastomosis or perineal body after posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) is common. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a perineal vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) for prevention of WD following repair of anorectal malformations (ARM) with rectoperineal and rectovestibular fistula.

METHODS

A retrospective dual-center case-control study of children undergoing PSARP without colostomy between 2011 and 2019 was performed. The VAC group received preoperative bowel preparation (PBP), postoperative application of a VAC, loperamide (only Location A), intravenous antibiotics (IA), and total parenteral nutrition (TPN). The non-VAC group underwent PBP, loperamide (Location A), IA, and TPN without VAC. Primary outcome was WD at the anocutaneous anastomosis or reconstructed perineal body within the first 14 days after surgery.

RESULTS

The study population included 18 patients (VAC group) and 20 children (non-VAG group) with rectoperineal and rectovestibular fistula. The incidence of WD in the VAC group was 0% compared to 25% in the non-VAC group (0/18 vs. 5/20, p = 0.04). No VAC related complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative application of a VAC embedded in a perioperative treatment protocol has the potential to prevent wound dehiscence of the neoanus and reconstructed perineal body following PSARP.

TYPE OF STUDY

Case-control study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty for intermediate type rectovestibular fistula: a preliminary report

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) is considered to benefit the male patients with anorectal malformation (ARM). This study evaluates LAARP management for intermediate type rectovestibular fistula (IRVF) in the female patient with ARM.

METHODS

Twelve patients with IRVF (aged 3-5 months) underwent LAARP from 2017 to 2019 in our institute. LAARP was performed for mobilization of the rectum, visualization and enlargement of the center of the sphincter muscle complex (SMC) from pelvic and perineal aspects, intra-fistula mucosectomy and rectal pull-through in the SMC with the fourchette and the perineal body unattached.

RESULTS

LARRP was performed in all patients without conversion to open procedure. No patient suffered from wound infection, vaginal injury, recurrent fistula and anal stenosis. The parents were satisfied with the appearance of the wound. Rectal prolapse developed in one patient and needed surgical correction. The patients were followed up for a mean of 19.7 months (ranged from 12 to 35 months).

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary experience shows that LAARP offers an alternative method of correction for the IRVF with good visualization of the SMC and may diminish the risks of wound dehiscence and vaginal injury.

General complications after surgery for anorectal malformations

The introduction of posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) by deVries and Peña in the early 80s has impacted to the treatment of patients with anorectal malformations (ARM). It gained great recognition worldwide in a very short time, and since then, surgeons dealing with the treatment of this complex malformation could achieve tremendous progress in contemporary management of this anomaly. Despite the growing experience and body of information globally, the treatment of ARMs continues to be a challenge to the pediatric surgeons due to the nature and the variability of the anomaly, and short- and long-term problems continue to exist even after nearly 40 years of the PSARP era. Today, knowing more about it, pediatric surgeons are committed to do more for their ARM patients to have them as physically and socially healthy individuals.