Cargando…

Revision Surgery in the Management of Anorectal Malformations: Experience from a Tertiary Center of India

AIM AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the significant advancements in the management of anorectal malformations (ARMs), there are various surgical and functional complications reported. Complications are closely related with the surgical techniques adopted and the types of malformations. In this article, we p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kumar, Basant, Upadhyaya, Vijai Dutta, Gupta, Manish Kumar, Kishore, Srinivasa, Nijagal Mutt, J. B., Yadav, Rajanikant, Kumar, Sheo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6042176/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30050264
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jiaps.JIAPS_140_17
Descripción
Sumario:AIM AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the significant advancements in the management of anorectal malformations (ARMs), there are various surgical and functional complications reported. Complications are closely related with the surgical techniques adopted and the types of malformations. In this article, we present our experiences with ARM patients who required reoperation after unsuccessful previous surgeries or who had developed complications related to the previous surgical techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical and electronic records of all the patients with ARM who were operated for ARMs in our institute from June 2010 to May 2016. All ARM patients who needed reoperation were included in the study. These patients were previously operated outside our institute and referred to us with ongoing problems of constipation, stool impaction with overflow incontinence, perineal soiling, and difficult urination. RESULTS: There were 31 patients (M:F = 2.1:1) of ARM, reoperated for 38 indications during the above-mentioned period. Five patients had more than one problem. Presentation included neoanal stenosis (11), complete obliteration of neoanus (2), malpositioned neoanus (2), persistent/recurrent rectourethral fistula (3), iatrogenic rectovaginal fistula (4), rectal prolapse (5), large widened neoanus with soiling (2), and urethral stricture (2), which required revision interventions. Six patients had megarectum. All patients showed improvement in their symptoms after revision surgery, but 10 (41.7%) patients required further regular bowel management program (BMP) to avoid the soiling and constipation. Fourteen (58.3%) patients stayed clean without regular BMP. CONCLUSION: All these complications had clear explanations and are well described in the literature. Revision surgery in such patients had fair outcome, but some sort of BMP was required. Both posterior sagittal anorectoplasty and anterior sagittal anorectoplasty are excellent techniques for revision surgery with few simple modifications.