Skip to main content
Log in

Does eversion of the anorectum during restorative proctocolectomy influence functional outcome?

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of eversion of the anorectum during restorative proctocolectomy (RP) for ulcerative colitis on functional outcome. METHODS: One hundred seventeen patients underwent RP with stapled end-to-end ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (EEA), without resection of the anal mucosa. Sixty-four underwent EEA with eversion of the anorectum, and 53 underwent EEA without eversion. Each patient underwent paired studies of anorectal function before and a median of 12 months after RP. RESULTS: One year after RP, median (interquartile range) maximum resting pressure was 69 (range, 51–88) cmH 2 O in those patients who underwent eversion vs. 80 (range, 64–90) cmH 2 O in patients without eversion (P{bd>0.04). Threshold sensation in the upper, middle, and lower thirds of the anal canal were 9.1, 7.4, and 6.8 mA after eversionvs. 6.9, 4.9, and 3.8 mA without eversion (P =0.003,P<0.001,P<0.001, respectively). Before operation, all patients had a rectoanal inhibitory reflex; however, after RP, 54 of 64 patients in the eversion group and 50 of 53 patients with a stapled EEA without eversion had an inhibitory reflex (P =not significant). Leakage of mucus was experienced by 11 patients who underwent eversion, compared with 9 patients without eversion. Fifty-six of 64 patients with eversion could defer defecation for more than 30 min compared with 43 of 53 patients without eversion. Twenty-two of 64 patients in the eversion group retained perfect discrimination between flatus and feces compared with 38 of 54 without eversion (P<0.001). Level of the anastomosis was 1 (range, 0.5–3) cm above dentate line after eversion compared with 1.5 (range, 0–6) cm without eversion. CONCLUSION: Clinical outcome after RP with eversion was not as good as outcome after stapled EEA without eversion. Such a conclusion requires confirmation in a prospective control trial.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mandl F. Uber den mastdarmkrebs. Dt Z Chir 1922;168:145–288.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Swenson O, Sherman JO, Fisher JH, Cohen E. The treatment and postoperative complications of congenital megacolon: a 25 year follow up. Ann Surg 1975;182:266–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brough WA, Schofield PF. An improved technique of J pouch construction and ileoanal anastomosis. Br J Surg 1989;76:350–1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Goligher JC. Eversion technique for distal proctectomy in ulcerative colitis: a preliminary report. Br J Surg 1984;71:26–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lewis WG, Holdsworth PJ, Sagar PM, Holmfield JH, Johnston D. Effect of anorectal eversion during restorative proctocolectomy on anal sphincter function. Br J Surg 1993;80:121–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 ileoanal anastomosis without mucosal resection with mucosal proctectomy and endo-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 1987;74:940–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Roe AM, Bartolo DC, Mortensen NJ. New method for assessment of anal sensation in various anorectal disorders. Br J Surg 1986;73:310–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Keighley MR, Henry MM, Bartolo DC, Mortensen NJ. Anorectal physiology measurement: report of a working party. Br J Surg 1989;76:356–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen L, Holliday M. Statistics for social scientists. London: Harper and Row, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Martin LW, Torres AM, Fischer JH, Alexander F. The critical level for preservation of continence in the ileoanal anastomosis. J Pediatr Surg 1985;20:664–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Telander RL, Perrault J. Colectomy with rectal mucosectomy and ileoanal anastomosis in young patients. Arch Surg 1981;116:623–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nicholls RJ, Belliveau P, Neill M, Wilks M, Tabaqachali S. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir: a patho-physiological assessment. Gut 1981;22:462–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Deen KI, Williams JG, Grant EA, Billingham C, Keighley MR. Randomized trial to determine the optimum level of pouch-anal anastomosis in stapled restorative proctocolectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:133–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Duthie HL, Watts JM. Contribution of the external anal sphincter to the pressure zone in the anal canal. Gut 1965;6:64–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Frenckner B, von Euler C. Influence of pudendal nerve block on the function of the anal sphincters. Gut 1975;16:482–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May 7 to 12, 1995.

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, A.S., Lewis, W.G., Williamson, M.E.R. et al. Does eversion of the anorectum during restorative proctocolectomy influence functional outcome?. Dis Colon Rectum 39, 489–493 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02058699

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02058699

Key words

Navigation