A unique opportunity for the operative treatment of high anorectal malformations: laparoscopy

Laparoscopic approach in the management of anorectal malformations

Seventeen years have passed since the first description of the laparoscopic approach for anorectal malformation and approximately 68 articles have been published on the subject. In this review article, we aim to describe the advantages as well as the indications and contraindications of this approach when dealing with each specific type of anorectal malformation, according to what has been described in the literature and to our own experience. The ideal and undisputable indication for laparoscopy remains for cases in which the abdomen needs to be entered to repair the malformation. Only 10% of male patients with anorectal malformation are born with a recto-bladder neck fistula that requires an abdominal approach, this represents an ideal indication for laparoscopy. In females, only the complex cloacae with a common channel length greater than 3 cm are the ones that require a laparotomy; they represent about 30% of the cloacae. However, the repair of this type of cloacae also requires sophisticated and technically demanding maneuvers that have never been done laparoscopically. In cases of recto-urethral prostatic fistulas the malformation can be repaired either way: laparoscopically or posterior sagitally. In all other malformations: recto-perineal fistula, recto-urethral bulbar fistula, anorectal malformation without fistula, rectal atresia, recto-vestibular fistula; no justification for laparoscopy could be found; and in some cases, laparoscopy is contraindicated. In the published reports, there is no evidence supporting the idea that laparoscopic repair results in better functional results when compared with non-laparoscopic operation; there is a tendency to omit information relevant to bowel control such as the characteristics of the sacrum and the presence or absence of tethered cord; and most authors do not compare results between comparable malformations.

Laparoscopic-assisted PSARP - the advantages of combining both techniques for the treatment of anorectal malformations with recto-bladderneck or high prostatic fistulas

AIM

The aim of this study was to present an alternative way to use both the posterior sagittal approach combined with laparoscopy for the repair of select cases of anorectal malformation (ARM).

METHODS

The laparoscopic approach was used for rectal dissection, ligation of the fistula, and division of vessels to pull the rectum down in cases of ARM with recto-bladderneck or high prostatic fistula. The posterior sagittal incision we believe made the perineal portion safer, allowing for rectal tapering when necessary, and for accurate placement of the rectum, anchored in the center of the sphincter.

RESULTS

There were 15 children (recto-bladderneck fistula, n=13 and recto-prostatic fistula, n =2) in this series. There were no urethral injuries, posterior urethral diverticula, or rectal strictures. A laparotomy was needed in two children in order to mobilize a very high rectum. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 10 years. Clinical results were consistent with our published series for male patients with these types of defects: 5 are fecally incontinent (3 are clean with a bowel management program), 1 is fecally continent, and 9 are too young to assess. Four children suffered rectal mucosal prolapse.

CONCLUSION

The combination of laparoscopy and PSARP represents a useful technical alternative that allows for a safe reconstruction in cases of ARM with recto-bladderneck and in selected high prostatic fistulas.

Laparoscopic repair of anorectal malformations at the Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital: taking stock

BACKGROUND

The current standard repair for anorectal malformations in children is a posterior sagittal anorectoplasty. Recently, laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) was performed at the Red Cross Children's Hospital.

METHODS

A detailed case note review was conducted. Patient outcome was prospectively evaluated by colorectal nurse specialists using the Krickenbeck standardized questionnaire. Comparison among patients undergoing posterior sagittal anorectoplasty was performed.

RESULTS

Between September 2005 and June 2009, 24 children underwent LAARP. Sixteen had associated anomalies, including 7 children with renal and 4 children with cardiac abnormalities. Median age at surgery was 7.5 months (range, 2.6-15.0 months). Subtypes of anorectal malformation were as follows: vestibular, 2; bulbar, 9; prostatic, 7; vesical, 3; and with no fistula, 3. There was a 16% early complication rate. Redo-anoplasty was required in 9 patients. Eleven children had difficulties with follow-up. Thirteen children had regular follow-up and were analyzed further. Toilet training had been completed in 7 children (median age, 4.3 years; range, 3.5-6 years). Six children developed voluntary bowel motions. Six children are awaiting toilet training or are unable to train because of incontinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Anal stenosis was the most common complication post-LAARP. Etiology appeared to be multifactorial, but poor compliance with dilatations was a leading cause.

Laparoscopy and its use in the repair of anorectal malformations

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopy has been used for the treatment of anorectal malformations (ARMs) in an attempt to be less invasive and with the hope that it would result in a better functional outcome. There remains a significant debate about whether these expectations have been fulfilled.

METHODS

Seventeen patients with ARM for whom laparoscopy was used were retrospectively reviewed. Six were operated on primarily by the authors, and 11 cases were referred after a laparoscopic repair performed elsewhere. In addition, a literature review was performed looking for evidence of less invasiveness and improved functional results in patients operated on laparoscopically.

RESULTS

The diagnosis was imperforate anus with a rectobladder neck fistula in our 6 cases with the fistula ligated laparoscopically in each case. In 1 patient, the malformation was repaired entirely using laparoscopic technique. The other 5 patients had a laparoscopically assisted repair because we had to open the abdomen to taper a dilated rectum in 2, mobilize a very high rectum in 2, and take down a distal colostomy stoma in 1. Eleven patients were referred with a variety of problems after a laparoscopic repair done elsewhere for rectal stricture (5), rectal prolapse (4), recurrent rectourethral fistula (3), rectal mislocation (3), failed attempted repair leading to fecal incontinence (1), and a posterior urethral diverticulum (1). Our literature review included 47 references (involving 323 patients) published between 1998 and 2010. All studies showed that laparoscopic repair of ARMs is feasible. The review, however, did not provide evidence of less invasiveness or improved functional results.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy for ARM is a less invasive procedure when compared with those operations that would have previously required a laparotomy (rectobladder neck fistula). In cases of rectoprostatic fistulae, the laparoscopic approach is feasible and avoids a lengthy posterior sagittal incision. There is no evidence that the laparoscopic approach is a less invasive procedure for other types of ARMs. In cases of rectobulbar fistula, congenital anal stenosis, perineal fistula, ARM without fistula, the evidence suggests that it may be lead to more complications. There is no evidence in the literature demonstrating better functional results in cases of ARM operated on laparoscopically.

Outcome of males with high anorectal malformations treated with laparoscopic-assisted anorectal pull-through: preliminary results of a comparative study with the open approach in a single institution

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the outcome of males with HARM treated with a laparoscopic-assisted anorectal pull-through compared with the open posterior sagittal approach in a single institution.

METHODS

This study includes 32 patients: 17 (9 with a rectoprostatic fistula [RPF] and 8 with a rectovesical fistula [RVF]) who underwent laparoscopic-assisted anorectal pull-through from October 2001 onward and 15 (8 with an RPF and 7 with an RVF) treated by posterior sagittal approach before that date. Patients were reviewed retrospectively but were operated on by the authors and had longitudinal follow-up. Parameters analyzed included associated anomalies, sacral ratio (SR) index, age at surgery, operative time, complications, presence of voluntary bowel movements, constipation, and soiling. A good outcome was determined by absent or grade 1 soiling and a poor outcome result by soiling grades 2 and 3.

RESULTS

Mean age at surgery was 22 and 37.5 months for patients with RPF and RVF, respectively, in the laparoscopic group and 29.2 and 25.7 months in the open group. Operative time was significantly shorter (P < .0036) for the laparoscopic RVF repair compared with the open approach. In patients with RPF, 50% in the laparoscopic (L) and 37.5% in the open (O) approach had an SR below 0.6. Fifty percent of all patients with RVF had an SR below 0.6, making groups comparable in terms of evaluating bowel function. Four patients were excluded in the analysis of functional results. Voluntary bowel movements with previous defecatory sensation were present in 83.l3% (5/6) in L vs 87.5% (7/8) in O patients with RPF and 62.5% (5/8) L vs 50% (3/6) in O patients with RVF. Grade 1 soiling was present in 50% (3/6) vs 62.5% (5/8) of patients with RPF and 37.5% (3/8) vs 16% (1/6) of patients with RVF in the L and O groups, respectively. Soiling grade 2 or 3 was present in 50% (3/6) vs 12.5% (1/8) of patients with RPF and 37.5% (3/8) vs 50% (3/6) of patients with RVF in the L and O groups, respectively. The risk of poor outcome was 61% in the group with SR lower than 0.6 vs 13% in the group with a higher ratio. By stratifying the groups according to type of surgery or anatomical type, these results were maintained.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach is a reasonable surgical option for the management of HARM. Laparoscopic approach was less time consuming in patients with RVF without impairing functional results.

Laparoscopic-assisted anorectal pull-through for anorectal malformations: a systematic review and the need for standardization of outcome reporting

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic-assisted anorectal pull-through (LAARP) is becoming an increasingly common procedure to correct high and intermediate anorectal malformations (ARMs). The aim of this review was to evaluate worldwide experiences with LAARP with regard to indications, outcomes, and quality of reporting.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted. The search was limited to studies reported in English and performed in humans. In addition to Medline and PubMed, a manual search of the Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Pediatric Surgery International, Surgical Endoscopy, and the Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques published between June 2000 and April 2008 was conducted.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included in the final analysis. Of the included studies, none were randomized, 2 were prospective in nature, and 4 compared outcomes of posterior sagittal anorectoplasty and LAARP. The studies included 124 patients (96 males, 28 females) with 80% reported as having high/intermediate malformations. All studies reported short-term outcomes. Reported outcomes included continence, rectal prolapse, the position of the rectum (7 studies using Kelly score), manometry (1 study), contrast enema (1 study), postanal endosonography (3 studies), and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (3 studies). Outcomes varied widely between reports precluding a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

The number of studies dealing with LAARP is low. There is a need for both a standardization and improvement in the quality of reporting in LAARP research. This will ultimately allow for evidence-based surgical decision making.