Eric A Kurzrock1, Edward Karpman, Anthony R Stone. 1. Department of Urology, University of California-Davis, and Children's Hospital, Sacramento, 95817, USA. kurzrock@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Malone antegrade continence enema has revolutionized the management of intractable fecal incontinence and constipation. When the appendix is absent, surgical options are limited. Small series with short-term followup have demonstrated the feasibility but not the reliability of the continent colonic tube. We present our experience with a lateral based colonic tube. We also compared lateral based colonic tubes to medial based tubes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical records of patients treated with a continent colonic tube for intractable fecal incontinence were reviewed. We identified 8 patients who underwent the procedure between July 2000 and February 2003. The literature was reviewed to compare lateral vs medial based tubes. RESULTS: Average followup was 28 months (range 10 to 41). Stomal stenosis developed in 4 patients (50%) within 3 to 6 months of surgery. Passive dilation at the clinic corrected the problem in 3 patients and 1 required operative stomal revision. All 8 patients reported almost complete relief of rectal incontinence and constipation. A literature review demonstrated a significantly higher rate of stomal stenosis in lateral vs medial based colonic tubes (40% vs 12%). CONCLUSIONS: The continent colonic tube is a safe and effective alternative in patients with refractory fecal incontinence and constipation who do not have an available appendix. These results appear durable during the described period. We believe that this technique is an alternative to the cecostomy button and it should be offered to suitable patients. The lateral based colonic tube appears to have a higher rate of stomal stenosis than medial based colonic tubes, which may be attributed to the local blood supply of the colon.
PURPOSE: The Malone antegrade continence enema has revolutionized the management of intractable fecal incontinence and constipation. When the appendix is absent, surgical options are limited. Small series with short-term followup have demonstrated the feasibility but not the reliability of the continent colonic tube. We present our experience with a lateral based colonic tube. We also compared lateral based colonic tubes to medial based tubes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical records of patients treated with a continent colonic tube for intractable fecal incontinence were reviewed. We identified 8 patients who underwent the procedure between July 2000 and February 2003. The literature was reviewed to compare lateral vs medial based tubes. RESULTS: Average followup was 28 months (range 10 to 41). Stomal stenosis developed in 4 patients (50%) within 3 to 6 months of surgery. Passive dilation at the clinic corrected the problem in 3 patients and 1 required operative stomal revision. All 8 patients reported almost complete relief of rectal incontinence and constipation. A literature review demonstrated a significantly higher rate of stomal stenosis in lateral vs medial based colonic tubes (40% vs 12%). CONCLUSIONS: The continent colonic tube is a safe and effective alternative in patients with refractory fecal incontinence and constipation who do not have an available appendix. These results appear durable during the described period. We believe that this technique is an alternative to the cecostomy button and it should be offered to suitable patients. The lateral based colonic tube appears to have a higher rate of stomal stenosis than medial based colonic tubes, which may be attributed to the local blood supply of the colon.