Laparoscopically assisted anorectoplasty-Surgical procedures and outcomes: A literature review

Advancing Pediatric Robotic Colorectal Surgery: Trends, Outcomes, and Future Directions-A Comprehensive Review

INTRODUCTION

 Pediatric robotic colorectal surgery has rapidly evolved, offering enhanced precision and safety for treating complex conditions such as Hirschsprung disease (HSCR), anorectal malformations (ARMs), and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This review analyzes recent trends, outcomes, and complications in robotic colorectal procedures for pediatric patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 A systematic review was performed using PubMed, yielding 1,112 articles related to pediatric robotic colorectal surgery. After applying exclusion criteria, 35 papers were analyzed, focusing on patient characteristics, procedure types, and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

 Since 2001, approximately 700 pediatric patients have undergone robotic colorectal procedures, with HSCR being the most commonly treated condition (n = 421). The review highlights that 1.7% of patients experienced Clavien-Dindo grade III complications, while 11.5% had grade I to II complications, indicating a favorable safety profile. The use of robotic platforms facilitated improved precision during perirectal dissection and reduced the risk of damage to adjacent structures, particularly in cases requiring complex pelvic dissections. Despite promising outcomes, the uptake of robotic colorectal surgery remains lower than that for urologic procedures due to challenges such as cost, instrument size, and specialized training.

CONCLUSION

 Robotic colorectal surgery in children is a safe and effective approach, particularly for complex conditions like HSCR, IBDs, and ARMs. While adoption is currently limited by cost and training requirements, ongoing advancements in technology and techniques promise to broaden its application and improve outcomes in pediatric surgery.

Functional Outcome in Patients With Anorectal Malformation With Recto-prostatic or Recto-bulbar Urethral Fistula and Comparison Between Different Surgical Approaches: A Multi-center Study

PURPOSE

To analyze and compare the outcomes in patients with anorectal malformation with rectoprostatic and rectourethral fistula between laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) versus posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP).

METHOD

We performed a retrospective review on all males with anorectal malformation (ARM) with recto-prostatic (ARM-RP) or recto-bulbar urethral fistula (ARM-RB) treated in five tertiary paediatric surgical centres in the past 25 years. Defecative function was assessed using the Krickenbeck classification and Kelly's score. Functional outcomes between patients with LAARP and PSARP were compared.

RESULTS

There were a total of 136 males with ARM-RP and ARM-RB for analysis, among which 73 (53.7%) had ARM-RP and 63 (46.3%) had ARM-RB. The median age of the patients was 9.4 years (range 0.8-24.7 years) and the median age at operation was 0.4 years (0 day-3.1 years). 57 (41.9%) and 79 patients (58.1%) underwent PSARP and LAARP respectively. 34 patients (25%) had VACTERL association. 111 (81.6%) and 103 patients (75.7%) had sacral and spinal cord anomalies respectively. 19 patients (13.9%) eventually required Malone's Antegrade Continence Enema (MACE). For the comparison between PSARP and LAARP, no difference in Kelly scores (4.58 ± 1.63 versus 4.67 ± 1.36) was identified (p = 0.79). Logistic regression for voluntary bowel movement showed that VACTER association (p = 0.02) and fistula location (p = 0.01) were significant prognostic factors, whereas the operation approach (PSARP or LAARP) was not (p = 0.65).

CONCLUSION

VACTERL association and fistula location were significant prognostic factors for voluntary bowel movement, and there appeared to be no significant difference in functional outcome between PSARP and LAARP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Comparison of postoperative urinary complications in laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty versus posterior sagittal anorectoplasty for anorectal malformation with rectourethral fistula

BACKGROUND

Long-term urinary outcomes after anorectal malformation (ARM) repair are affected by surgical approach and sacral anomalies. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) and posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) in terms of urinary complications.

METHODS

Between 2001 and 2022, 45 patients were treated with LAARP or PSARP. The rectourethral fistula and inflow angle between the fistula and rectum was confirmed by preoperative colonography. The incidence of urinary complications and treatment were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Four patients (14%) had remnant fistula and five patients (17%) had neurogenic bladder dysfunction in LAARP group, while three patients (18%) had urethral injury in PSARP group. All patients with remnant fistula were asymptomatic and followed without treatment. The incidence of remnant fistula improved between earlier decade and later decade. In all cases with urethral injury, suture repair was performed and no postoperative leakage was noted. All five patients with neurogenic bladder dysfunction had spine abnormalities that required clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) and two were free from CIC finally.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to check inflow angle preoperatively to prevent remnant fistula. For PSARP, meticulous dissection is required when separating fistula from urethra because they create common wall. The most contributing factor to neurogenic bladder is sacral anomalies. Preoperative evaluation and postoperative urinary drainage are important.

Rectal Prolapse Following Repair of Anorectal Malformation: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Management

BACKGROUND

The incidence and optimal management of rectal prolapse following repair of an anorectal malformation (ARM) has not been well-defined.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed utilizing data from the Pediatric Colorectal and Pelvic Learning Consortium registry. All children with a history of ARM repair were included. Our primary outcome was rectal prolapse. Secondary outcomes included operative management of prolapse and anoplasty stricture following operative management of prolapse. Univariate analyses were performed to identify patient factors associated with our primary and secondary outcomes. A multivariable logistic regression was developed to assess the association between laparoscopic ARM repair and rectal prolapse.

RESULTS

A total of 1140 patients met inclusion criteria; 163 (14.3%) developed rectal prolapse. On univariate analysis, prolapse was significantly associated with male sex, sacral abnormalities, ARM type, ARM complexity, and laparoscopic ARM repairs (p < 0.001). ARM types with the highest rates of prolapse included rectourethral-prostatic fistula (29.2%), rectovesical/bladder neck fistula (28.8%), and cloaca (25.0%). Of those who developed prolapse, 110 (67.5%) underwent operative management. Anoplasty strictures developed in 27 (24.5%) patients after prolapse repair. After controlling for ARM type and hospital, laparoscopic ARM repair was not significantly associated with prolapse (adjusted odds ratio (95% CI): 1.50 (0.84, 2.66), p = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

Rectal prolapse develops in a significant subset of patients following ARM repair. Risk factors for prolapse include male sex, complex ARM type, and sacral abnormalities. Further research investigating the indications for operative management of prolapse and operative techniques for prolapse repair are needed to define optimal treatment.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective cohort study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Hemi-circumferential mucosal resection and anastomosis procedure for rectal prolapse following anorectoplasty for anorectal malformations

PURPOSE

Rectal prolapse after radical surgery for anorectal malformations (ARMs) is a common postoperative complication that causes bleeding and stenosis, and sometimes requires surgical treatment. Different surgical techniques have been reported, but most are associated with high recurrence rates and a long postoperative stay. We performed the hemi-circumferential mucosal resection and anastomosis procedure (HCMR) to preserve anal muscle and anal function. Here, we report the success of our minimally invasive surgical approach to correct rectal prolapse in patients with ARMs.

METHODS

The subjects of this retrospective review were patients who underwent HCMR for rectal prolapse after radical surgery for ARMs between January, 2014 and August, 2021. HCMR involves rectal mucosal resection without muscle plication.

RESULTS

A collective 15 HCMR procedures were performed in 10 patients. The median age at repair was 1.8 years (range, 10 months-18 years). The median operation time and postoperative length of stay were 46 min (range, 17-85 min) and 3 days (range, 1-7 days), respectively. The median postoperative observation period was 3 years 4 months (range, 8 months-7 years 10 months) and no complications or recurrences were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

HCMR is a safe and effective surgical treatment for rectal prolapse after radical operation for ARMs, which is minimally invasive and preserves rectal muscle and function.

Percutaneous Anorectoplasty (PARP)—An Adaptable, Minimal-Invasive Technique for Anorectal Malformation Repair

Background: Anorectal malformations comprise a broad spectrum of disease. We developed a percutaneous anorectoplasty (PARP) technique as a minimal-invasive option for repair of amenable types of lesions. Methods: Patients who underwent PARP at five institutions from 2008 through 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic information, details of the operative procedure, and perioperative complications and outcomes were collected. Results: A total of 10 patients underwent the PARP procedure during the study interval. Patients either had low perineal malformations or no appreciable fistula. Most procedures were guided by ultrasound, fluoroscopy, or endoscopy. Median age at PARP was 3 days (range 1 to 311) days; eight patients were male. Only one intraoperative complication occurred, prompting conversion to posterior sagittal anorectoplasty. Functional outcomes in most children were highly satisfactory in terms of continence and functionality. Conclusions: The PARP technique is an excellent minimal-invasive alternative for boys born with perineal fistulae, as well as patients of both sexes without fistulae. The optimal type of guidance (ultrasound, fluoroscopy, or endoscopy) depends on the anatomy of the lesion and the presence of a colostomy at the time of repair.

A Comparison of Sexual Function in Male Patients with Anorectal Malformations Between the Conventional and Laparoscopic Approaches

Aim: To compare the incidence of erectile dysfunction and ejaculatory anomalies in male patients with anorectal malformation (ARM) after treatment with the sacroperineal approach (Group S) or laparoscopically assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP; Group L). Methods: Male patients who underwent repair of high- or intermediate-type ARMs at our center and aged ≥15 years as of November 2020 were enrolled. Patients with intellectual disabilities or chromosomal disorders were excluded. Sacroperineal anorectoplasty has long been routinely performed at our hospital, and LAARP was introduced as a standard procedure in 2000. The medical records of the outpatient clinic were retrospectively reviewed, and questionnaires were sent in November 2020. Data regarding erectile dysfunction, ejaculatory anomalies, and associated anomalies were collected and compared between the two groups. Results: Answers were obtained from 7/22 patients in Group S (32%) and 10/17 patients in Group L (59%). Patient characteristics were similar, but the median age at the time of replying was significantly different (22 [18-29] years in Group S and 19 [15-20] years in Group L, P = .0060). None of the patients had erectile dysfunction, but 3 patients in Group S (43%) and 5 patients in Group L (50%) had ejaculatory failure, with no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions: The incidence of sexual dysfunction in male patients with ARM might be higher than that in the healthy population. Patients might abscond from their follow-up visits as they age; therefore, providing patients with accurate information on this issue before puberty is essential.

Laparoscopic Approach in Anorectal Malformations: How We Do It

Laparoscopy has a major role in the treatment of anorectal malformations (ARM) since Georgeson et al. introduced the laparoscopic assisted anorectoplasty in 2000. The majority of ARM can be repaired through a posterior sagittal incision without the need to enter the abdomen. Some ARM types require an abdominal approach to detach the rectum from the urinary tract in males or the vagina in females. Those malformations benefit from laparoscopy. In this article, we aimed to highlight the technical aspects relevant to the current laparoscopic repair of ARM.