Irrigations coliques antérogrades (technique de Malone)

Use of Malone antegrade continence enemas in neurologic bowel dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

Patients with neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD) suffer severe constipation and/or fecal incontinence that are very difficult to treat. Most medication-based and interventional treatments have been unsuccessful. The goal of this study was to assess the medium-term effectiveness of the Malone procedure in all patients with NBD, as an alternative to colostomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective single-center study, 23 patients who underwent Malone's surgical treatment were analyzed. The main criteria were the usage of antegrade colonic enemas (ACE) after Malone's procedure at the most recent follow-up and comparison of quality of life scores before and after surgery.

RESULTS

The post-procedure mortality was zero, but an overall morbidity of 60% was observed, including minor complications (Clavien 1, 2) in 56%. The median follow-up was 33 months. At the most recent follow-up, the utilization rate of the neo-appendicostomy for ACE was 69.6%; 76.9% of the patients using ACE reported improvement in quality of life scores. Secondary colostomy was performed in 21.7% for functional failure of the Malone procedure.

CONCLUSION

The Malone procedure is a reliable technique that can be used in the therapeutic strategy for managing NBD patients with incontinence/constipation refractory to usual treatments. It should be considered as a therapeutic step to take before resorting to colostomy.

Benefits of perineal colostomy on perineal morbidity after abdominoperineal resection

PURPOSE

Abdominoperineal resection has a high rate of postoperative morbidity of the perineal wound. This study aimed to determine the effects of perineal colostomy on perineal morbidity after abdominoperineal resection.

METHODS

All patients who underwent an abdominoperineal resection for rectal adenocarcinoma between 1993 and 2007 were studied. Two groups were identified and compared who had undergone either an iliac colostomy or a perineal colostomy.

RESULTS

The analysis included 110 patients (iliac colostomy group, n = 41; perineal colostomy group, n = 69). There were fewer instances of pelviperineal morbidity (P = .008) and fewer instances of wound dehiscence (P = .02) in the perineal colostomy group, which resulted in a shorter time to healing (35.3 vs 45.1 d, respectively; P = .04). There was no specific postoperative morbidity in any patient and no difference between the 2 groups regarding long-term perineal morbidity. The benefits from perineal colostomy were statistically significant in patients who received radiation therapy in terms of pelviperineal morbidity (P = .01) and healing time (50.8 vs 35.9 days, respectively; P = .02), whereas no difference was found in patients who had not received radiation therapy.

CONCLUSION

Perineal colostomy is a safe and functionally acceptable procedure for perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection for rectal adenocarcinoma. In the present study, there was no additional morbidity related to perineal colostomy, and this procedure was associated with a decrease in perineal morbidity and healing time compared with primary perineal closure, in particular, after radiotherapy treatment.