Current aspects and future prospects of total anorectal reconstruction—a critical and comprehensive review of the literature
- 324 Downloads
Many rectal cancer patients undergo abdominoperineal excision worldwide every year. Various procedures to restore perineal (pseudo-) continence, referred to as total anorectal reconstruction, have been proposed. The best technique, however, has not yet been defined. In this study, the different reconstruction techniques with regard to morbidity, functional outcome and quality of life were analysed. Technical and timing issues (i.e. whether the definitive procedure should be performed synchronously or be delayed), oncological safety, economical aspects as well as possible future improvements are further discussed.
A MEDLINE and EMBASE search was conducted to identify the pertinent multilingual literature between 1989 and 2013. All publications meeting the defined inclusion/exclusion criteria were eligible for analysis.
Dynamic graciloplasty, artificial bowel sphincter, circular smooth muscle cuff or gluteoplasty result in median resting and squeezing neo-anal pressures that equate to the measurements found in incontinent patients. However, quality of life was generally stated to be good by patients who had undergone the procedures, despite imperfect continence, faecal evacuation problems and a considerable associated morbidity. Many patients developed an alternative perception for the urge to defecate that decisively improved functional outcome. Theoretical calculations suggested cost-effectiveness of total anorectal reconstruction compared well to life with a permanent colostomy.
Many patients would be highly motivated to have their abdominal replaced by a functional perineal colostomy. Given the considerable morbidity and questionable functional outcome of current reconstruction technique improvements are required. Tissue engineering might be an option to design an anatomically and physiologically matured, and customised continence organ.
KeywordsTotal anorectal reconstruction TAR Colorectal cancer Abdominoperineal excision APER
Conflict of interest
None of the authors have any potential conflicts of interest, relevant financial interests, activities, relationships and affiliations with respect to this publication to declare.
- 1.Siegel R, DeSantis C, Virgo K, Stein K, Mariotto A, Smith T, Cooper D, Gansler T, Lerro C, Fedewa S, Lin C, Leach C, Cannady RS, Cho H, Scoppa S, Hachey M, Kirch R, Jemal A, Ward E (2012) Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62(4):220–241. doi: 10.3322/caac.21149 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.American National Cancer I (2010)Google Scholar
- 7.Marr R, Birbeck K, Garvican J, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, Parsons WJ, Dixon MF, Mapstone NP, Sebag-Montefiore D, Scott N, Johnston D, Sagar P, Finan P, Quirke P (2005) The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg 242(1):74–82CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Sideris L, Zenasni F, Vernerey D, Dauchy S, Lasser P, Pignon JP, Elias D, Di Palma M, Pocard M (2005) Quality of life of patients operated on for low rectal cancer: impact of the type of surgery and patients’ characteristics. Dis Colon Rectum 48(12):2180–2191. doi: 10.1007/s10350-005-0155-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Holzer B, Matzel K, Schiedeck T, Christiansen J, Christensen P, Rius J, Richter P, Lehur PA, Masin A, Kuzu MA, Hussein A, Oresland T, Roche B, Rosen HR (2005) Do geographic and educational factors influence the quality of life in rectal cancer patients with a permanent colostomy? Dis Colon Rectum 48(12):2209–2216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Farroni N, Van den BA, Haustermans K, Van Cutsem E, Moons P, D’Hoore A, Penninckx F (2007) Perineal colostomy with appendicostomy as an alternative for an abdominal colostomy: symptoms, functional status, quality of life, and perceived health. Dis Colon Rectum 50(6):817–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Abbes ON, Vanwymersch T, Paterson HM, Mauel E, Jamart J, Crispin B, Kartheuser A (2009) Total perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: long-term results of dynamic graciloplasty with Malone appendicostomy. Colorectal DisGoogle Scholar
- 25.Violi V, Boselli AS, De Bernardinis M, Costi R, Nervi G, Bertele A, Franze A, Roncoroni L (2004) Surgical results and functional outcome after total anorectal reconstruction by double graciloplasty supported by external-source electrostimulation and/or implantable pulse generators: an 8-year experience. Int J Color Dis 19(3):219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Madoff RD, Rosen HR, Baeten CG, LaFontaine LJ, Cavina E, Devesa M, Rouanet P, Christiansen J, Faucheron JL, Isbister W, Kohler L, Guelinckx PJ, Pahlman L (1999) Safety and efficacy of dynamic muscle plasty for anal incontinence: lessons from a prospective, multicenter trial. Gastroenterology 116(3):549–556CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Schmidt E, Bruch HP (1981) Autotransplantation of smooth muscle for treating incontinence of sphincters (author’s transl). J Chir (Paris) 118(5):315–320Google Scholar
- 42.Hirche C, Mrak K, Kneif S, Mohr Z, Slisow W, Hunerbein M, Gretschel S (2010) Perineal colostomy with spiral smooth muscle graft for neosphincter reconstruction following abdominoperineal resection of very low rectal cancer: long-term outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 53(9):1272–1279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.Pocard M, Sideris L, Zenasni F, Duvillard P, Boige V, Goere D, Elias D, Malka D, Ducreux M, Lasser P (2007) Functional results and quality of life for patients with very low rectal cancer undergoing coloanal anastomosis or perineal colostomy with colonic muscular graft. Eur J Surg Oncol 33(4):459–462. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2006.10.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 47.Chittenden AS (1930) Reconstruction of anal sphincter by muscle slips from the glutei. Ann Surg 92:152–154Google Scholar
- 64.Raghavan S, Miyasaka EA, Gilmont RR, Somara S, Teitelbaum DH, Bitar KN (2014) Perianal implantation of bioengineered human internal anal sphincter constructs intrinsically innervated with human neural progenitor cells. Surgery 155(4):668–674. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2013.12.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar