Literature DB >> 12004217

Neorectal reservoir is not the functional principle of the colonic J-pouch: the volume of a short colonic J-pouch does not differ from a straight coloanal anastomosis.

Alois Fürst1, Karin Burghofer, Lilli Hutzel, Karl-Walter Jauch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis prevents a definitive stoma in patients with distal rectal cancer. However, imperative stool urge, stool fragmentation, prolonged stooling sessions, and minor problems of incontinence are frequently observed in the postoperative situation and negatively affect quality of life. Therefore, the colonic J-pouch was originally constructed to create a stool reservoir. In a randomized, prospective study, the short (5 cm) colonic J-pouch was tested for function and continence vs. straight coloanal anastomosis.
METHODS: Over a period of 30 months, 74 consecutive patients (55 males) with rectal cancer in the lower and middle third of the rectum were included and randomized into two groups. Anastomosis was performed either as a coloanal or a colon-pouch-anal anastomosis. The standardized surgical procedure included mobilization of the left hemicolon, central ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery and vein, preaortal lymph node dissection, autonomic nerve preservation, and total mesorectal excision. The anastomosis was performed at the upper anal canal or at the intersphincteric level. All patients were evaluated preoperatively and six months postoperatively for fecal continence, including sphincter manometry and defecation habits. In addition, quality of life was determined by use of a standardized questionnaire (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, EORTC-QLQ-C30).
RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were randomized into each group. In general, problems with continence for liquids or gas occurred less frequently in the colonic J-pouch group 6 months after surgery. The frequency of bowel movements was lower in the J-pouch group (2.5 per day) than in the coloanal group (4.7 per day). Importantly, in a manometric study at the same postoperative point, neorectal capacity was decreased to a similar degree in both groups compared with the preoperative rectal volume. Thus, the expected and postulated reservoir effect could not be achieved by forming a 5-cm colonic J-pouch.
CONCLUSION: The colonic J-pouch was superior with regard to continence for gas and liquids compared with a straight coloanal anastomosis. Furthermore, stool frequency was significantly lower in the J-pouch group than in the coloanal reconstruction group. However, because neorectal capacity decreased equally in both groups, we speculate that the advantage of the colonic J-pouch is not in the creation of a larger neorectal reservoir but rather may be related to decreased motility.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12004217     DOI: 10.1007/s10350-004-6264-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  30 in total

1.  [Reconstructive surgery after anterior resection of the rectum].

Authors:  S Willis; V Schumpelick
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 2.  Pouch operation for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Jin-ichi Hida; Kiyotaka Okuno
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 3.  Quality of life assessment in surgical oncology trials.

Authors:  Kerry Avery; Jane M Blazeby
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 4.  A systematic review of the function and complications of colonic pouches.

Authors:  Poh-Koon Koh; Choong-Leong Tang; Kong-Weng Eu; Miny Samuel; Edwin Chan
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2006-09-13       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  Quality of life after surgery for colorectal cancer: clinical implications of results from randomised trials.

Authors:  Sameer Gujral; Kerry N L Avery; Jane M Blazeby
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2007-11-20       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 6.  [Continent ileoanal reservoir--a surgical challenge].

Authors:  U Zurbuchen; A J Kroesen; H J Buhr
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  A randomized multicenter trial to compare long-term functional outcome, quality of life, and complications of surgical procedures for low rectal cancers.

Authors:  Victor W Fazio; Massarat Zutshi; Feza H Remzi; Yann Parc; Reinhard Ruppert; Alois Fürst; James Celebrezze; Susan Galanduik; Guy Orangio; Neil Hyman; Leslie Bokey; Emmanuel Tiret; Boris Kirchdorfer; David Medich; Marcus Tietze; Tracy Hull; Jeff Hammel
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  [The transverse coloplasty pouch after low anterior resection: early postoperative results].

Authors:  A Ulrich; K Z'graggen; B Schmied; J Weitz; M W Büchler
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 0.955

9.  Reconstruction techniques after proctectomy: what's the best?

Authors:  Sebastian G de la Fuente; Christopher R Mantyh
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2007-08

10.  Comparison of a colonic J-pouch and transverse coloplasty pouch in patients with rectal cancer after an ultralow anterior resection using fecoflowmetric profiles.

Authors:  Yasuo Kobayashi; Kobayashi Yasuo; Minoru Yagi; Yagi Minoru; Tsuneo Iiai; Iiai Tsuneo; Tatsuo Tani; Tani Tatsuo; Satoshi Maruyama; Maruyama Satoshi; Katsuyoshi Hatakeyama; Hatakeyama Katsuyoshi
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-07-17       Impact factor: 2.571

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.