Skip to main content
Log in

Colonic pouchvs. side-to-end anastomosis in low anterior resection

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

Abstract

PURPOSE: Colonic pouches have gained increasing popularity in reconstruction after low anterior resection. In this prospective, randomized trial colonic pouch reconstruction is compared with side-to-end anastomosis for functional outcome. METHODS: From October 1995 to October 1996, 29 patients had colonic pouch and 30 patients had side-to-end anastomosis reconstruction after low anterior resection. Patients were matched for age, gender, and tumor stage and localization. All patients underwent functional evaluation preoperatively and at three and six months post-operatively. RESULTS: There was no difference in preoperative anorectal function. The operating time was higher in the colonic pouch group (167vs. 149 minutes). Twenty-three patients (79.3 percent) with colonic pouch had a protective stoma compared with 21 patients (70 percent) with side-to-end anastomosis. Postoperative complications were 10.3 and 13.3 percent, respectively. There was no difference in manometric pressure of the anus, in anorectal angle, and in continence status after three and six months. Stool frequency was higher in the side-to-end anastomosis group, with 2.2vs. 5.4 per day at three months and 2.3vs. 3.1 per day at six months. Constipation was noted in two patients with colonic pouch (7 percent) and none in the side-to-end anastomosis group at three months and twovs. none at six months. Maximum tolerated volume and threshold volume was higher in the colonic pouch group at three and at six months. CONCLUSION: Both forms of reconstruction have similar satisfactory long-term functional results. The major advantage of colonic pouch was seen in the immediate postoperative phase.

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. Williams NS. The rationale for preservation of the anal sphincter in patients with low rectal cancer. Br J Surg 1984;71:575–81.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cavaliere F, Pemberton JH, Cosimelli M, Fazio VW, Beart RW Jr. Coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer: long-term results at the Mayo and Cleveland Clinics. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:807–12.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cohen AM. Colon J-pouch rectal reconstruction after total or subtotal proctectomy. World J Surg 1993;17:267–70.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hallböök O, Nyström P-O, Sjödahl R. Physiologic characteristics of straight and colonic J-pouch anastomoses after rectal excision for cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:332–8.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lazorthes F, Gamagami R, Chiotasso P, Istvan G, Muhammad S. Prospective, randomized study comparing clinical results between small and large colonic J-pouch following coloanal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:1409–13.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nicholls RJ, Lubowski DZ, Donaldson DR. Comparison of colonic reservoir and straight colo-anal reconstruction after rectal excision. Br J Surg 1988;75:318–20.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ortiz H, De Miguel M, Armendáriz P, Rodriguez J, Chocarro C. Coloanal anastomosis: are functional results better with a pouch? Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:375–7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Seow-Chen F, Goh HS. Prospective randomized trial comparing J colonic pouch-anal anastomosis and straight coloanal reconstruction. Br J Surg 1995;82:608–10.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wang J-Y, You Y-T, Chen H-H, Chiang J-M, Yeh C-Y, Tang R. Stapled colonic J-pouch-anal anastomosis without a diverting colostomy for rectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:30–4.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lazorthes P, Fages P, Chiotasso P, Lemozy J, Bloom E. Resection of the rectum with construction of a colonic reservoir and colo-anal anastomosis for carcinoma of the rectum. Br J Surg 1986;73:136–8.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Baker JW. Low end to side rectosigmoid anastomosis: description of technique. Arch Surg 1950;61:143–5.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hida J, Yasutomi M, Fujimoto K,et al. Functional outcome after low anterior resection with low anastomosis for rectal cancer using the colonic J-pouch: prospective randomized study for determination of optimum pouch size. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:986–91.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Von Flüe M, Harder F. Rektumchirurgie. Sphinktererhaltung und Rektumersatz. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1997:53–94.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Carmona JA, Ortiz H, Perez Cabanas I. Alterations in anorectal function after anterior resection for cancer of the rectum. Int J Colorectal Dis 1991;6:108–10.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Landi E, Marmorale C, Piloni V, Fianchini A, Landa L, Cavicchi A. Funktionelle Bewertung von koloanalen Anastomosen mit und ohne Reservoir. Coloproctology 1993;6:359–62.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Berger A, Tiret E, Parc R,et al. Excision of the rectum with colonic J pouch-anal anastomosis for adenocarcinoma of the low and mid rectum. World J Surg 1992;16:470–7.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Parc R, Tiret E, Frileux P, Moszkowski E, Loygue J. Resection and colo-anal anastomosis with colonic reservoir for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 1986;73:139–141.

    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, San Antonio, Texas, May 2 to 7, 1998.

About this article

Cite this article

Huber, F.T., Herter, B. & Siewert, J.R. Colonic pouchvs. side-to-end anastomosis in low anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum 42, 896–902 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02237098

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02237098

Key words

Navigation