Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 451–456 | Cite as

Anal sphincter reconstruction by dynamic graciloplasty after abdominoperineal resection for cancer

  • Philippe Rouanet
  • Pierre Senesse
  • Dalila Bouamrirene
  • Eliane Toureille
  • Michel Veyrac
  • Cecile Astre
  • Francis Bacou
Original Contributions


PURPOSE: Chronic low-frequency electrical stimulation can safely transform fatiguing muscle into fatigue-resistant muscle. This fundamental discovery was used to reconstruct the anal sphincter. Dynamic graciloplasty was found to be effective in the treatment of fecal incontinence. Our study was undertaken to investigate the oncologic, functional, and quality of life results of dynamic graciloplasty anal reconstruction after an abdominoperineal resection for carcinoma. METHODS: Between April 1993 and April 1996, nine patients (4 males) with a median age of 51.2 (range, 29–69) years underwent an abdominoperineal resection for carcinoma (4 had a rectal adenocarcinoma and 5 had an epidermoidal anal tumor) and an anal sphincter reconstruction with electrically stimulated graciloplasty. Oncologic and functional results were evaluated after a mean follow-up of 32 (range, 14–59) months. A quality of life questionnaire was filled out by seven patients. RESULTS: Sphincter reconstruction required the same hospitalization period as abdominoperineal resection. Two patients died from evolutive disease. Three patients were operated on twice, one for immediate colonic necrosis, two for colonic perforation after enema. One of them refused the graciloplasty and had an abdominoperineal resection. Six patients were dysfunctioned. The mean resting pressure was 24±10 mmHg, and the mean pressure during stimulation was 95±25 mmHg. Five patients were continent for solids and liquid; four wore less than three pads per day, and one wore more than three. Four patients used enemas twice a week; one patient had spontaneous evacuation. The quality of life questionnaire showed that the mean scores for social interaction, symptoms, and psychological and physical states were 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, and 2.7, respectively. The mean value was 1.5 CONCLUSIONS: Total anorectal reconstruction with dynamic graciloplasty is an oncologically safe procedure. Functional results improve with time, but careful patient selection guarantees a successful functional outcome. Technical progress is necessary to improve the quality of life.

Key words

Abdominoperineal resection Cancer Sphincter reconstruction Dynamic graciloplasty Functional outcome Quality of life 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pickrell KL, Broadbent TR, Masters FW, Metzger JL. Construction of a rectal sphincter and restoration of anal continence by transplanting the gracilis muscle: a report of four cases in children. Ann Surg 1952;139:853–63.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Salmons S, Vrbova G. The influence of activity on some contractile characteristics of mammalian fast and slow muscles. J Physiol 1969;201:535–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baeten C, Spaans F, Fluks A. An implanted neuromuscular stimulator for fecal incontinence following previously implanted gracilis muscle: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum 1988;31:134–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williams NS, Patel J, George BD,et al. Development of an electrically stimulated neoanal sphincter. Lancet 1991;338:1166–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Williams NS, Hallan RI, Koeze TH, Watkins ES. Restoration of gastrointestinal continuity and continence after abdominoperineal excision of the rectum using an electrically stimulated neoanal sphincter. Dis Colon Rectum 1990;33:561–5.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cavina E, Seccia M, Evangelista G,et al. Construction of a continent perineal colostomy by using electrostimulated gracilis muscles after abdominoperineal resection: personal technique and experience with 32 cases. It J Surg Sci 1987;17:305–14.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chwalow AJ, Lurie A, Bean K,et al. A french version of the sickness impact profile: stages in the cross cultural validation of a generic quality of life scale. Fundal Clin Pharmacol 1992;6:319–26.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Minsky BD. Adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer. A good first step. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1016–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rouanet P, Fabre JM, Dubois JB,et al. Conservative surgery for low rectal carcinoma after high-dose radiation: functional and oncologic results. Ann Surg 1995;221:67–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deans GT, McAleer JJ, Spence RA. Malignant anal tumours. Br J Surg 1994;81:501–8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mander BJ, Abercrombie JF, George BD, Williams NS. The electrically stimulated gracilis neosphincter incorporated as part of total anorectal reconstruction after abdominoperineal excision of the rectum. Ann Surg 1996;224:702–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seccia M, Menconi C, Balestri R, Cavina E. Study protocols and functional results in 86 electrostimulated graciloplasties. Dis Col Rectum 1994;37:897–904.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geerdes BP, Zoetmulder FA, Heineman E, Vos EJ, Rongen MJ, Baeten CG. Total anorectal reconstruction with a double dynamic graciloplasty after abdominoperineal reconstruction for low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:698–705.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cavina E. Outcome of restorative perineal graciloplasty with simultaneous excision of the anus and rectum for cancer: a ten-year experience with 81 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:182–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Santoro E, Tirelli C, Scutari F,et al. Continent perineal colostomy by transposition of gracilis muscles: technical remarks and results in 14 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37(Suppl):S73-S80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wee TK, Wong SK. Functional anal sphincter reconstruction with the gracilis muscles after abdominoperineal resection. Lancet 1984;2:1245–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosen HR, Feil W, Novi G,et al. The electrically stimulated (dynamic) graciloplasty for faecal incontinencefirst experiences with a modified muscle sling. Int J Colorectal Dis 1994;9:184–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mercati U, Trancanelli V, Castagnoli GP, Mariotti A, Ciaccarini R. Use of the gracilis muscles for sphincteric construction after abdominoperineal resection: technique and preliminary results. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:1085–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simonsen OS, Stolf NA, Aun F,et al. Rectal sphincter reconstruction in perineal colostomies after abdominoperineal resection for cancer. Br J Surg 1976;63:389–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Graf W, Ekström K, Glimelius B, Påhlman L. A pilot study of factors influencing bowel function after colorectal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:744–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Geerdes BP, Zoetmulder FA, Baeten CG. Double dynamic graciloplasty and coloperineal pull-through after abdominoperineal resection. Eur J Cancer 1995;31A:1248–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Von Flue MO, Degen LP, Beglinger C,et al. Ileocecal reservoir reconstruction with physiologic function after total mesorectal cancer excision. Ann Surg 1996;224:204–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frigell A, Ottander M, Stenbeck H, Påhlman L. Quality of life of patients treated with abdominoperineal resection or anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1990;79:26–30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Rouanet
    • 3
  • Pierre Senesse
    • 3
  • Dalila Bouamrirene
    • 3
  • Eliane Toureille
    • 3
  • Michel Veyrac
    • 1
  • Cecile Astre
    • 3
  • Francis Bacou
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Gastrointestinal DiseaseCentre Val d'AurelleMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.INRA, Montpellier Cancer InstituteCentre Val d'AurelleMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.Montpellier Cancer InstituteCentre Val d'AurelleMontpellier Cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations