Prospective long-term functional and cosmetic results of ASARP versus PASRP in treatment of intermediate anorectal malformations in girls
- 250 Downloads
Prospective randomized comparison of the functional and cosmetic results of anterior sagittal anorectoplasty (ASARP) and posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) in the management of intermediate anorectal malformations (ARMs) in girls was performed.
Thirty-eight girls with intermediate ARMs were randomly allocated to group A treated by ASARP technique and group B treated by PSARP technique: 14 girls from each group passed 30-month age for early functional assessment by Templeton and Holschneider scores, 18 cases passed 55 months for late functional evaluation. Results were compared statistically where P value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.
Cosmetic satisfaction was higher in ASARP group with a median score of 3 compared to 2 in PSARP group. Functional results were assessed early at median of 33.5 months post-repair where Templeton score was 4 versus 3.75 and Holschneider score was 11 versus 11. Late functional assessment was done for 8 cases from each group where Templeton score was 4 versus 4, while Holschneider score was 12 versus 11.
ASARP is an optimal technique for treatment of intermediate ARM in girls. Cosmetic results were superior to PSARP. Despite the observations that functional results give higher scores in ASARP group versus PSARP group, no statistical significance could be reached.
KeywordsVestibular fistula excision Anorectal malformations ASARP PASRP Vestibular anus Functional results
- 1.Spouge D, Baird PA (1986) Imperforate anus in 700,000 consecutive live born infants. Am J Med Genet 2(Suppl):151–161Google Scholar
- 2.Holschneider A, Huston J, Peña A, Beket E, Chatterjee S, Coran A, Davies M, Georgeson K, Grosfeld J, Gupta D, Iwai N, Kluth D, Martucciello G, Moore S, Rintala R, Smith ED, Sripathi DV, Stephens D, Sen S, Ure B, Grasshoff S, Boemers T, Murphy F, Soylet Y, Dubbers M, Kunst M (2005) Preliminary report on the international conference for the development of standards for the treatment of anorectal malformations. J Pediatr Surg 40:1521–1526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Peña A (1988) Posterior sagittal anorectoplasty: results in the management of 332 cases of anorectal malformations. Pediatr Surg Int 3:94–104Google Scholar
- 12.Ong N, Bealsey SW (1990) Comparison of clinical methods for the assessment of continence after repair of high anorectal anomalies. Pediatr Surg Int 5:233–237Google Scholar
- 13.Rintala RJ (1998) Anorectal malformations: an overview. In: Stringer MD, Oldham KT, Mouriquand PDE, Howard ER (eds) Pediatric surgery and urology: long term outcomes, 1st edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 357–375Google Scholar
- 15.Kaddah SN (2007) One stage repair of intermediate and high anorectal malformations in newborn. Ann Pediatr Surg 3:144–149Google Scholar
- 20.Levitt MA, Peña A (2006) Operative management of anomalies in females. In: Holschneider AM, Huston JM (eds) Anorectal malformations in children: embryology, diagnosis, surgical treatment, follow-up, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 303–307Google Scholar