Posterior sagittal anorectoplasty in anorectal anomalies: clinical, manometric and profilometric evaluation

Post-Operative Anorectal Manometry in Children following Anorectal Malformation Repair: A Systematic Review

Despite surgical correction, children with anorectal malformations may experience long-term bowel dysfunction, including fecal incontinence and/or disorders of evacuation. Anorectal manometry is the most widely used test of anorectal function. Although considerable attention has been devoted to its application in the anorectal malformation cohort, there have been few attempts to consolidate the findings obtained. This systematic review aimed to (1) synthesize and evaluate the existing data regarding anorectal manometry results in children following anorectal malformation repair, and (2) evaluate the manometry protocols utilized, including equipment, assessment approach, and interpretation. We reviewed four databases (Embase, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and PubMed) for relevant articles published between 1 January 1985 and 10 March 2022. Studies reporting post-operative anorectal manometry in children (<18 years) following anorectal malformation repair were evaluated for eligibility. Sixty-three studies were eligible for inclusion. Of the combined total cohort of 2155 patients, anorectal manometry results were reported for 1755 children following repair of anorectal malformations. Reduced resting pressure was consistently identified in children with anorectal malformations, particularly in those with more complex malformation types and/or fecal incontinence. Significant variability was identified in relation to manometry equipment, protocols, and interpretation. Few studies provided adequate cohort medical characteristics to facilitate interpretation of anorectal manometry findings within the context of the broader continence mechanism. This review highlights a widespread lack of standardization in the anorectal manometry procedure used to assess anorectal function in children following anorectal malformation repair. Consequently, interpretation and comparison of findings, both within and between institutions, is exceedingly challenging, if not impossible. Standardized manometry protocols, accompanied by a consistent approach to analysis, including definitions of normality and abnormality, are essential to enhance the comparability and clinical relevance of results.

A Study of the Clinical Profile and Management of Children With Anorectal Malformations

Introduction The diagnosis of anorectal malformations (ARMs) antenatally is rare, and most of these cases are diagnosed in the neonatal period. The defects range from easily treated minor anomalies with good prognosis to those that are difficult and complex. The associated anomalies in these malformations are important determinants for the prognosis and outcome of these cases. Material and methods  The present study was carried out in the department of pediatric surgery in a tertiary care institute. Patients presenting with ARMs in the neonatal period, those reported for definitive surgery, and patients for colostomy closure surgery were included. Patients who died before surgical treatment were excluded from the study. Convenience sampling of 100 patients who met the inclusion criteria was performed until the sample size was reached. Results Out of 63 cases of high variety, 84.12% were males and 15.87% were females. Out of 37 patients of low variety, 43.24% were males and 56.75% were females. The anomalies of the urogenital system were present in 22 (34.92%) out of 63 cases of high ARMs and 10 (27.02%) out of 37 cases of low ARMs. In the male patients, anocutaneous fistula was in 16 (23.18%) of cases. Out of 31 females in the present study, anorectal agenesis with anovestibular fistula was seen in 19 (61.29%) cases. In the early complications, significant bleeding and urethral injury were seen in one (2.63%) patient each. However, among the late complications, anal stenosis, mucosal prolapse, and wound infection were seen in seven (18.42%), five (13.15%), and four (10.52%) patients, respectively. Conclusion  A holistic approach to the management of ARMs is needed with a long-term goal of achieving urinary and fecal continence with good quality of life. The outcome of surgery is dependent on the specific type of malformation, but the results are better when intervention is done early.

Anorectal Manometry in Children: The Update on the Indications and the Protocol of the Procedure

Anorectal disorders are common in children. They are related to structural and/or functional abnormalities of the anorectum or pelvic floor with a variety of symptoms. Therefore, diagnostic tests to evaluate anorectal function can help to better understand the underlying pathophysiology and aetiology as well as facilitate patient management. During the past decades, substantial efforts have been made to improve anorectal function testing; however, more advanced investigations might lead to difficulties in interpretation. Additionally, a great diversity of equipment and protocols are used among centres, which may lead to heterogeneous interpretation of results. More studies to standardize methods of testing and validate reference values are strongly recommended in children. This review updates on the current indications and the protocol of anorectal manometry.

Prognostic evaluation of biofeedback response in patients treated for anorectal malformation

PURPOSE

Functional bowel outcome in patients with anorectal malformation often is poor. For fecal incontinence resulting from sphincter dysfunction, biofeedback (BFB) training appears to be effective. The aim of study was to investigate the bowel function in incontinent children treated for ARM, using a clinical score, a manometric and pelvic magnetic resonance evaluation, in order to establish predictive parameters of response after BFB.

METHODS

25 children (median age of 6.5 years) with true fecal incontinence were evaluated by clinical score, anorectal manometry and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). According to these evaluations patients were divided in 4 groups: group 1 (favorables manometry and MRI); group 2 (favorable manometry and unfavorable MRI); group 3 (unfavorable manometry and favorable MRI); group 4 (unfavorables manometry and MRI). All groups started a cycle of BFB and six months after end of BFB, were reevaluated by clinical score and manometry.

RESULTS

The overall response to BFB was excellent in 44%, discrete in 40% and poor in 16%; a better response was found in groups 1 and 2 than groups 3 and 4. The differences between groups before BFB proportionally correlated with values after BFB; a correlation with genitourinary and spinal anomalies was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that BFB is an effective for fecal incontinence when the assessment pretreatment (functional and morphologic) is favorable; the manometry can evaluate the potential sphincterial recovery after BFB with a further prognostic benefit if correlated to morphologic evaluation with MRI.

Clinical, manometric and profilometric evaluation after surgery for Hirschsprung's disease: comparison between the modified Duhamel and the transanal rectosigmoidectomy techniques

PURPOSE: To evaluate fecal continence, anorectal manometry (AM) and profilometry (P), in patients operated for congenital megacolon, using either the modified Duhamel technique (MDT) or the modified transanal rectosigmoidectomy (MTR) technique. METHODS: 42 patients were evaluated clinically and via AM and P, for postoperative control. The resting, coughing, voluntary contraction, maintained voluntary contraction and perianal stimulation pressures were investigated. The rectosphincteric reflex was tested and the simple and enhanced pressure curves were evaluated. The three-dimensional profilometric outline was produced. Student's t, chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were used for statistical analysis (p<0.05). RESULTS: AM showed mean resting pressures of 53.44 mmHg for MDT and 60.67 mmHg for MTR, and mean voluntary contraction pressures of 94.50 mmHg for MDT and 95.47 mmHg for MTR. There was no statistical difference between the groups. The shapes of the simple and enhanced pressure curves did not present any statistical difference, independent of the surgical technique used. CONCLUSION: The two surgical techniques were equivalent. MDT caused greater incidence of postoperative constipation that MTR did. AM and P were shown to be excellent tests for postoperative follow-up among these patients.