BACKGROUND: The use of rectal tubes in colorectal surgery appears to be a matter of individual choice, with little documented evidence to support their use. This study assesses the current practice of rectal tubes amongst consultant members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain & Ireland (ACPGBI). METHODS: A piloted questionnaire was sent to practising ACPGBI consultant members listed in the 2003-04 directory. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software and Fishers exact test. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-nine replies were received from 579 posted questionnaires (response rate = 58.5%). Rectal tubes were used by 116 (35%) of responding surgeons. Rectal tubes were more commonly used by surgeons with less than 10 years practice as a consultant (P < 0.005). The main indications for tube placement were following ileo-anal or colonic pouch surgery (73%), after any anterior resection (36%) (rectal tubes were reserved for only low anterior resections by 16% of surgeons) and in the rectal stump after total or subtotal colectomy for acute colitis (11%). Twenty-three percent of these practising surgeons would use a rectal tube as an alternative to a diverting stoma, predominantly in selected patients following ileo-anal pouch surgery. A Foley catheter was the commonest type of tube used (70%) and this was usually placed above the anastomosis (80%). Rectal tubes were left in situ for a median of 5 days (range = 1-13 days). Three surgeons (2.6%) reported serious complications including tube perforation of the bowel or anastomosis. Several different mechanisms were suggested for the purpose and functioning of the rectal tube, the commonest being to decompress the rectum and/or pouch. CONCLUSION: Rectal tube placement is simple and safe and is used by a third of colorectal surgeons in UK and Ireland. Given their simplicity, the efficacy of rectal tubes in reducing local anastomotic complications requires further evaluation within the confines of a randomised controlled trial.
BACKGROUND: The use of rectal tubes in colorectal surgery appears to be a matter of individual choice, with little documented evidence to support their use. This study assesses the current practice of rectal tubes amongst consultant members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain & Ireland (ACPGBI). METHODS: A piloted questionnaire was sent to practising ACPGBI consultant members listed in the 2003-04 directory. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software and Fishers exact test. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-nine replies were received from 579 posted questionnaires (response rate = 58.5%). Rectal tubes were used by 116 (35%) of responding surgeons. Rectal tubes were more commonly used by surgeons with less than 10 years practice as a consultant (P < 0.005). The main indications for tube placement were following ileo-anal or colonic pouch surgery (73%), after any anterior resection (36%) (rectal tubes were reserved for only low anterior resections by 16% of surgeons) and in the rectal stump after total or subtotal colectomy for acute colitis (11%). Twenty-three percent of these practising surgeons would use a rectal tube as an alternative to a diverting stoma, predominantly in selected patients following ileo-anal pouch surgery. A Foley catheter was the commonest type of tube used (70%) and this was usually placed above the anastomosis (80%). Rectal tubes were left in situ for a median of 5 days (range = 1-13 days). Three surgeons (2.6%) reported serious complications including tube perforation of the bowel or anastomosis. Several different mechanisms were suggested for the purpose and functioning of the rectal tube, the commonest being to decompress the rectum and/or pouch. CONCLUSION: Rectal tube placement is simple and safe and is used by a third of colorectal surgeons in UK and Ireland. Given their simplicity, the efficacy of rectal tubes in reducing local anastomotic complications requires further evaluation within the confines of a randomised controlled trial.
Authors: P H E Teeuwen; M W J Stommel; A J A Bremers; G J van der Wilt; D J de Jong; R P Bleichrodt Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2009-01-09 Impact factor: 3.452