Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Abdominal mucosectomy reduces the incidence of soiling and sphincter damage after restorative proctocolectomy and J-pouch

  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

Thirty-two ileoanal J-pouch procedures have been performed by the author between 1983 and 1986. Two pouches have been excised, one has been defunctioned for diarrhea, and seven patients either have not had their ileostomy closed or have not been followed for more than four months after restoration of intestinal continuity. Of the remaining 22 patients, 12 early operations involved endoanal mucosectomy while in the ten most recent procedures, the rectum and anal mucosa have been excised from the abdomen. Incidence of complications between the methods of mucosal excision were comparable apart from cuff abscess (n=5) which only occur after endoanal muscosectomy. Functional results were identical apart from the incidence of soiling which occurred in six of 12 patients after endoanal mucosectomy but in only one of ten patients after abdominal mucosectomy. Resting anal canal pressures fell significantly after endoanal mucosectomy (87 to 60cm H20,P<0.05) but not after abdominal mucosectomy (87 to 81 cm H20). These differences may be due to the duration and extent of anal retraction, which was 72 minutes after endoanal mucosectomy but only 18 minutes after abdominal mucosectomy. Abdominal mucosectomy appears to cause less sphincter damage and soiling than conventional endoanal excision.

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. Taylor BM, Cranley B, Kelly KA, Phillips SF, Beart RW Jr, Dozois RR. A clinico-physiological comparison of ileal pouch-anal and straight ileoanal anastomoses. Ann Surg 1983;198:462–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nicholls J, Pescatori M, Motson RW, Pezim ME. Restorative proctocolectomy with a three-loop ileal reservoir for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: clinical results in 66 patients followed for up to 6 years. Ann Surg 1984;199:383–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fonkalsrud EW. Endorectal ileoanal anastomosis with isoperistaltic ileal reservoir after colectomy and mucosal proctectomy. Ann Surg 1984;199:151–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dozois RR. Heal ‘J’ pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 1985; 72(suppl):S80-S2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pescatori M, Parks AG. The sphincteric and sensory components of preserved continence after ileoanal reservoir. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1984;158:517–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Becker JM. Anal sphincter function after colectomy, mucosal proctectomy, and endorectal ileoanal pull-through. Arch Surg 1984; 119:526–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rothenberger DA, Vermeulen FD, Christenson CE, et al. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir and ileoanal anastomosis. Am J Surg 1983;145:82–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Shouler P, Keighley MR. Changes in colorectal function in severe idiopathic chronic constipation. Gastroenterology 1986;90:414–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Farthing MJ, Lennard-Jones JE. Sensibility of the rectum to distension and the anorectal distension reflex in ulcerative colitis. Gut 1978;19:64–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Heald RJ, Allen DR. Stapled ileo-anal anastomosis: a technique to avoid mucosal proctectomy in the ileal pouch operation. Br J Surg 1986;73:571–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen Z, McLeod RS, Stern H, Grant D, Nordgren S. The pelvic pouch and iloeanal anastomosis procedure: surgical technique and initial results. Am J Surg 1985;150:601–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Williams NS, Johnston D. The current status of mucosal proctectomy and ileo-anal anastomosis in the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis and adenomatous polyposis. Br J Surg 1985;72: 159–68.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Nicholls RJ, Pezim ME. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: a comparison of three reservoir designs. Br J Surg 1985; 72:470–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rothenberger DA, Wong WD, Buls JG, Goldberg SM. The S ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. In: Dozois RR, ed. Alternatives to conventional ileostomy. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1985:345–66.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hancock BD. Measurement of anal pressure and motility. Gut 1976;17:645–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Keighley MR, Buchmann P, Minervini S, Arabi Y, Alexander-Williams J. Prospective trials of minor surgical procedures and diet for haemorrhoids. Br Med J [Clin Res] 1979;2: 967–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Keighley MR. Anal sphincter function and sphincter preserving surgery. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1986;75:121–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Keighley, M.R.B. Abdominal mucosectomy reduces the incidence of soiling and sphincter damage after restorative proctocolectomy and J-pouch. Dis Colon Rectum 30, 386–390 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02555460

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02555460

Key words

Navigation