Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 566–572 | Cite as

Videoproctographic assessment after restorative proctocolectomy

  • W. A. Kmiot
  • K. Yoshioka
  • M. Pinho
  • M. R. B. Keighley
Original Contributions
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Videoproctography was performed in 40 patients after restorative proctocolectomy to evaluate pouch emptying, anopouch angle, and pelvic floor movement in relationship to functional outcome. Results were compared between the two different pouch designs tested and a control group of 26 patients who had an intact rectum. There was no difference in emptying between the two pouch designs or compared with the control subjects. Emptying did not influence either the frequency of defecation or patient soiling rate. The presence of an anal stricture was associated with poor emptying in each case in the pouch group. Anorectal angle was no different between the different pouch designs or compared with the control group at rest, during pelvic floor contraction, or attempted defecation. A similar finding was obtained with anorectal angle position and movement during pelvic floor contraction and attempted defecation in both pouch design groups and when compared with normal rectum. This study shows that the only factor that is consistently associated with poor pouch emptying is the presence of an anal stricture.

Key words

Restorative proctocolectomy J-pouch W-pouch Anal stricture Proctography 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Nicholls RJ. Restorative proctocolectomy with various types of reservoir. World J Surg 1987;11:751–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnston D, Holdsworth PJ, Nasmyth DG, et al. Preservation of the entire anal canal in conservative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis: a pilot study comparing end to end ileo-anal anastomosis without mucosal resection with mucosal proctectomy and endo-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 1987;74:940–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stryker SJ, Kelly KA, Phillips SF, et al. Anal and neorectal function after proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Ann Surg 1986;203:55–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nasmyth DG, Johnston D, Godwin PG, et al. Factors influencing bowel function after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 1986;73:469–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barkel DC, Pemberton JH, Pezim ME, et al. Scintigraphic assessment of the anorectal angle in health and after ileal pouchanal anastomosis. Ann Surg 1988;208:42–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mahieu P, Pringot J, Bodart P. Defecography. 1. Description of a new procedure and results in normal patients. Gastrointest Radiol 1984;9:247–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hyland G. Defaecating video proctography. J Audiov Media Med 1988;11:91–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yoshioka K, Hyland G, Keighley MR. Physiological changes after postanal repair and parameters predicting outcome. Br J Surg 1983;75:1220–4.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J 1986;292:746–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keighley MR, Yoshioka K, Kmiot W. Prospective randomised trial to compare the stapled double lumen pouch and the sutured quadruple pouch for restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 1988;75:1008–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parks AG. Anorectal incontinence. Proc R Soc Med 1975;68:681–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duthie HL. Anal continence. Gut 1971;12:844–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bartolo DC, Roe AM, Locke-Edmunds JC, et al. Flap valve theory of anorectal continence. Br J Surg 1986;73:1012–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Womack NR, Morrison JF, Williams NS. Prospective study of the effects of postanal repair in neurogenic faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 1988;75:48–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O'Connell PR, Pemberton JH, Kelly KA. Motor function of the ileal J pouch and its relation to clinical outcome after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. World J Surg 1987;11:735–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keighley MR, Henry MM, Bartolo DC, Mortensen NJ. Anorectal physiology measurement: report of a working party. Br J Surg 1989;76:356–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O'Connell PR, Pemberton JH, Brown ML, Kelly KA. Determinants of stool frequency after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Am J Surg 1987;153:157–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Farthing MJ, Lennard-Jones JE. Sensibility of the rectum to distension and the anorectal distension reflex in ulcerative colitis. Gut 1978;19:64–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turnbull GK, Bartram CI, Lennard-Jones JE. Radiological studies of rectal evacuation in adults with idiopathic constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 1988;31:190–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nicholls RJ, Moskowitz RL, Shepherd NA. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir. Br J Surg 1985;72(suppl):S76–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O'Connell PR, Kelly KA, Brown ML. Scintigraphic assessment of neorectal motor function. J Nucl Med 1986;27:460–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Finlay I. Comment in symposium: proctography. Int J Color Dis 1988;3:79.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. A. Kmiot
    • 1
  • K. Yoshioka
    • 1
  • M. Pinho
    • 1
  • M. R. B. Keighley
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Fourth Floor WestQueen Elizabeth HospitalEdgbastonUK

Personalised recommendations