Abstract
This article examines the effect of ileal pouch-anal (n=134) and coloanal (n=16) anastomoses on resting anal canal pressures in 150 patients. METHODS: Patients underwent anal manometry before ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) and coloanal anastomosis (CAA) and again six weeks after ileostomy closure following these procedures. A water-perfused catheter system with four radial ports was used for manometry, pressures being recorded during both station and continuous pull through. RESULTS: Patients with IPAA were younger than those with CAA (34 years vs. 50 years) and had a different ratio of hand-to-stapled anastomosis (1∶2.6 vs. 1.3∶1). All CAA patients had had rectal cancer while IPAA patients suffered mainly from ulcerative colitis (n=114) or familial polyposis (n=10). The mean preoperative resting pressure for all patients was 79 mmHg (75–87, 95 percent confidence limit) and the mean fall in this pressure after surgery was 25 mmHg (−21 to −29, 95 percent confidence limit). There was no difference in preoperative pressure or fall between handsewn and stapled anastomoses, or between IPAA and CAA. CONCLUSION: There was a significant relationship between preoperative pressure and change in pressure that held true for all subgroups (change=−0.7 × preoperative pressure + 31,r=0.69). Analysis of the functional results confirmed that patients with high preoperative pressure are at risk for severe falls after surgery and are not guaranteed a good result. Conversely, patients with low preoperative pressures may actually have an increase with surgery and are not always incontinent. Patients with low preoperative anal resting pressures should not be denied anastomosis to the anus if they are continent.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Seow-Choen, Tsunoda A, Nicholls RJ. Prospective randomised trial comparing anal function after handsewn anastomosis with mucosectomyversus stapled ileo-anal anastomosis without mucosectomy in restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 1991;78:430–4.
Jagelman DG. Surgical alternatives for ulcerative colitis. Med Clin North Am 1990;74:155–67.
Beart RW. Sphincter saving operations for chronic ulcerative colitis. Adv Surg 1990;23:195–210.
Sackier JM, Wood CB. Ulcerative colitis and polyposis coli; surgical options. Surg Clin North Am 1988;68:1319–36.
Rothenberger DA, Wong WD, Buls JG, Goldberg SM. The S ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. In: Dozois R, ed. Alternatives to conventional ileostomy. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1985:345–62.
Nicholls RJ. A commentary. In: Dozois R, ed. Alternatives to conventional ileostomy. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1985:363–6.
Johnston D. A commentary. In: Dozois R, ed. Alternatives to conventional ileostomy. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1985:367–70.
Utsunomiya J, Iwama T. The J ileal pouch-anal anastomosis; the Japanese experience. In: Dozois R, ed. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1985: 371–83.
Beart R, Metcalf AM, Dozois RR, Kelly KA. The J ileal pouch anal anastomosis: the Mayo Clinic experience. In: Dozois R, ed. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1985:384–97.
Stelzner M, Fonkalsrud EW. Assessment of anorectal function after mucosal proctectomy and endorectal ileal pull through for ulcerative colitis. Surgery 1990;107:201–8.
Emblem R, Stien R, Morkrid L. Anal sphincter function after colectomy, mucosal proctectomy and ileoanal anastomosis. Scand J Gastroenterol 1989;24: 171–8.
Miller R, Bartolo DC, Orrom WJ,et al. Improvement of anal sensation with preservation of the anal transition zone after ileoanal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum 1990;33:414–8.
Becker JM. Anal sphincter function after colectomy, mucosal proctectomy and endorectal ileoanal pullthrough. Arch Surg 1984;119:526–31.
Pescatori M, Parks AG. The sphincteric and sensory components of preserved continence after ileoanal reservoir. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1984;158:517–21.
Williams NS, Marzouk DE, Hallan RI, Waldron DJ. Function after ileal pouch and stapled pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Br J Surg 1989;76:1168–71.
Becker JM, Hillard AE, Mann FA,et al. Functional assessment after colectomy, mucosal proctectomy and endorectal pull-through. World J Surg 1985;9: 598–605.
Keighley MR. Abdominal mucosectomy reduces the incidence of soiling and sphincter damage after restorative proctocolectomy and J-pouch. Dis Colon Rectum 1987;30:386–90.
Goligher J. Surgery of the rectum, colon, and anus. East Sussex: Bailliere Tindall, 1984.
Neal DE, Williams NS, Johnston D. Rectal, bladder and sexual function after mucosal proctectomy with and without a pelvic reservoir for colitis and polyposis. Br J Surg 1982;69:599–604.
O'Connell PR, Stryker SJ, Metcalf AM,et al. Anal canal pressure and motility after ileoanal anastomosis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1988;166:47–54.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Church, J.M., Saad, R., Schroeder, T. et al. Predicting the functional result of anastomoses to the anus: The paradox of preoperative anal resting pressure. Dis Colon Rectum 36, 895–900 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02050622
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02050622