Manometric follow-up of anal sphincter function after an ileo-anal pouch procedure
Abstract
Between January 1985 and January 1987 restorative proctocolectomy with J-pouch was undertaken in 20 patients with ulcerative colitis. In all patients anal manometry was performed preoperatively, before closure of the temporary ileostomy (mean 3.9 months after operation) and 3, 6 and 12 months after the closure of the ileostomy. Preoperatively the basal resting pressure was 60.2±12 cm water and the maximum squeeze pressure 88.5 ±18 cm water. After the operation the respective pressures were 33.2 ±8 and 68 ±21 cm water, a decrease of 45% (p<0.05) and 12% (p<0.05), respectively. One year after the closure of the loop ileostomy the basal pressure was 46.2 ±9 cm water, which is still 23% lower (p<0.05) than preoperatively. At the same time the maximum squeeze pressure was 96.5 ± 13 cm water, 8% higher (p>0.1) than preoperatively. The continence of the patients at the end of the follow-up was either good (n=6) or excellent (n=9). A correlation seemed to exist between sphincter pressures and the degree of continence. It is concluded that the internal anal sphincter suffers damage during the operation and slowly recovers up to 6 months after closure of the covering ileostomy. After that its function usually does not improve and remains at a lower level than preoperatively.
Keywords
Public Health Internal Medicine Ulcerative Colitis Anal Sphincter Basal PressurePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Becker JM (1984) Anal sphincter function after colectomy, mucosal proctectomy and endorectal ileonal pull-through. Arch Surg 119:526–531Google Scholar
- 2.Nasmyth DG, Johnston D, Godwin PGR, Dixon MF, Smith A, Williams NS (1986) Factors influencing bowel function after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 73:469–473Google Scholar
- 3.Neal DE, Williams NS, Johnston D (1982) Rectal, bladder and sexual function after mucosal proctectomy with and without a pelvic reservoir for colitis and polyposis. Br J Surg 69:599–604Google Scholar
- 4.Beart RW, Dozois RR, Wolff BG, Pemberton JH (1985) Mechanisms of rectal continence. Lessons from the ileonal procedure. Am J Surg 149:31–34Google Scholar
- 5.Becker JM, Raymond JL (1986) Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. A single surgeon's experience with 100 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 204:375–383Google Scholar
- 6.Stryker SJ, Kelly KA, Phillips SF, Dozois RR, Beart RW (1986) Anal and neorectal function after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Ann Surg 203:55–61Google Scholar
- 7.Hancock BD, Smith K (1975) The internal sphincter and Lord's procedure for haemorrhoids. Br J Surg 62:833–836Google Scholar
- 8.Utsunomiya J, Iwama T (1985) The J ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: the Japanese experience. In: Dozois RR (ed) Alternatives to conventional ileostomy. Yearbook Medical, Chicago 371–383Google Scholar
- 9.Utsunomiya J, Oota M, Iwama T (1986) Recent trends in ileonal anastomosis. Ann Chir Gynaecol 75:56–62Google Scholar
- 10.Peck DA (1987) Rectal mucosal replacement with a stapled reservoir-anal anastomosis. 86th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Washington, DC (Abstract)Google Scholar
- 11.Taylor BM, Cranley B, Kelly KA, Phillips SF, Beart RW, Dozois RR (1983) A clinico-physiological comparison of ileal pouch-anal and straight ileoanal anastomoses. Ann Surg 198:462–468Google Scholar
- 12.Heppel J, Kelly KA, Phillips SF, Beart RW, Telander RL Jr, Perrault J (1982) Physiologic aspects of continence after colectomy, mucosal proctectomy, and endorectal ileoanal anastomosis. Ann Surg 195:435–443Google Scholar