PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relevance of anal endosonography (AES) during Georgeson laparoscopy-assisted anorectoplasty (GLA) for high/intermediate type imperforate anus (HIIA) using a continence evaluation questionnaire (CEQ) and postoperative AES (post-AES). METHODS: Fifteen HIIA patients who underwent GLA were enrolled in this prospective study. Six had intraoperative AES (op-AES) to confirm the accuracy of the positioning of the pull-through (PT) canal and 9 did not (no-AES). All subjects were reviewed prospectively by one surgeon and all had post-AES to measure the external sphincter (ES) and puborectalis (PR) at 3 and 9 o'clock to confirm that the PT colon was central. A CEQ (5 parameters: frequency of motions, severity of staining, severity of perianal erosions, anal shape, and requirement for medications; maximum score: 10) was administered to 9 subjects (4 from op-AES and 5 from no-AES) followed-up for over 3 years to assess continence. RESULTS: Mean age at GLA for both groups was not statistically different. There were no statistical differences between the two groups for thickness of the ES and PR on post-AES. Mean annual CEQ scores for the op-AES group 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after GLA were 5.3, 6.3, 7.4, 8.4, and 8.5, respectively, while for the no-AES group were 5.9, 7.1, 8.1, 8.2, and 8.2, respectively; all differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that op-AES is not necessary during GLA because there is no difference in clinical and functional status that can be attributed to op-AES.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relevance of anal endosonography (AES) during Georgeson laparoscopy-assisted anorectoplasty (GLA) for high/intermediate type imperforate anus (HIIA) using a continence evaluation questionnaire (CEQ) and postoperative AES (post-AES). METHODS: Fifteen HIIA patients who underwent GLA were enrolled in this prospective study. Six had intraoperative AES (op-AES) to confirm the accuracy of the positioning of the pull-through (PT) canal and 9 did not (no-AES). All subjects were reviewed prospectively by one surgeon and all had post-AES to measure the external sphincter (ES) and puborectalis (PR) at 3 and 9 o'clock to confirm that the PT colon was central. A CEQ (5 parameters: frequency of motions, severity of staining, severity of perianal erosions, anal shape, and requirement for medications; maximum score: 10) was administered to 9 subjects (4 from op-AES and 5 from no-AES) followed-up for over 3 years to assess continence. RESULTS: Mean age at GLA for both groups was not statistically different. There were no statistical differences between the two groups for thickness of the ES and PR on post-AES. Mean annual CEQ scores for the op-AES group 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after GLA were 5.3, 6.3, 7.4, 8.4, and 8.5, respectively, while for the no-AES group were 5.9, 7.1, 8.1, 8.2, and 8.2, respectively; all differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that op-AES is not necessary during GLA because there is no difference in clinical and functional status that can be attributed to op-AES.