PURPOSE: An animal study was performed to evaluate the effect of posterior sagittal pararectal mobilization on anorectal sphincter function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We initially divided 11 juvenile pigs into 3 groups: group 1-anesthesia alone (3), group 2-posterior sagittal incision alone (4) and group 3-posterior sagittal incision with unilateral pararectal dissection (4). Two animals in group 1 subsequently underwent posterior sagittal incision with circumferential pararectal dissection (group 4). The anal canal was preserved intact in all animals. Anorectal sphincter manometry was performed preoperatively, and 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Electromyography was performed 12 weeks postoperatively. Anorectal sphincter muscle complexes were harvested for histological examination. RESULTS: All animals had postoperative bowel continence. Postoperatively manometry revealed no difference from preoperative measurements in all study groups (p = 0.90). Electromyography and histological examination of the anorectal sphincters were normal in all but 2 animals. Denervation injury and histological atrophy were detected after repair of inadvertent enterotomy in 1 animal following unilateral pararectal dissection, and polyphasic motor unit potentials implying reinnervation were detected in another after circumferential pararectal mobilization. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that posterior sagittal incision and unilateral pararectal mobilization cause no permanent injury to the anorectal sphincter. However circumferential pararectal dissection or repair of a rectal injury may cause measurable changes in sphincter function.
PURPOSE: An animal study was performed to evaluate the effect of posterior sagittal pararectal mobilization on anorectal sphincter function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We initially divided 11 juvenile pigs into 3 groups: group 1-anesthesia alone (3), group 2-posterior sagittal incision alone (4) and group 3-posterior sagittal incision with unilateral pararectal dissection (4). Two animals in group 1 subsequently underwent posterior sagittal incision with circumferential pararectal dissection (group 4). The anal canal was preserved intact in all animals. Anorectal sphincter manometry was performed preoperatively, and 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Electromyography was performed 12 weeks postoperatively. Anorectal sphincter muscle complexes were harvested for histological examination. RESULTS: All animals had postoperative bowel continence. Postoperatively manometry revealed no difference from preoperative measurements in all study groups (p = 0.90). Electromyography and histological examination of the anorectal sphincters were normal in all but 2 animals. Denervation injury and histological atrophy were detected after repair of inadvertent enterotomy in 1 animal following unilateral pararectal dissection, and polyphasic motor unit potentials implying reinnervation were detected in another after circumferential pararectal mobilization. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that posterior sagittal incision and unilateral pararectal mobilization cause no permanent injury to the anorectal sphincter. However circumferential pararectal dissection or repair of a rectal injury may cause measurable changes in sphincter function.