Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1999 Feb;34(2):334-7.
doi: 10.1016/s0022-3468(99)90203-8.

Posterior sagittal anorectoplasty is superior to sacroperineal-sacroabdominoperineal pull-through: a long-term follow-up study in boys with high anorectal anomalies

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Posterior sagittal anorectoplasty is superior to sacroperineal-sacroabdominoperineal pull-through: a long-term follow-up study in boys with high anorectal anomalies

R J Rintala et al. J Pediatr Surg. 1999 Feb.

Abstract

Background/purpose: It is unclear which surgical method offers best long-term functional results in patients with high anorectal anomalies. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcome of sacroperineal-sacroabdominoperineal pull-through (SP-SAP) to that of posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP).

Methods: Only boys with high anorectal anomalies (rectourethral fistula) were included in the study to get fully comparable patient groups. From 1975 to 1987, 36 consecutive patients underwent anorectal reconstruction: 19 had SP-SAP (1975 to 1983) and 17 PSARP (12 with internal sphincter-sparing technique, 1983 to 1987). The late bowel function (age at follow up, SP-SAP, 19 years; range, 15 to 22; PSARP, 13 years; range, 10 to 19) was evaluated by clinical interview and examination, and anorectal manometry.

Results: Six (35%) of the PSARP patients and one (5%) of the SP-SAP patients (P < .04) were always clean without any adjunctive measures. Three PSARP patients and two SP-SAP patients stayed clean with daily enemas. In the PSARP patients with soiling, the median frequency of soiling episodes in a month was four (range, 1 to 16), in the SP-SAP patients, 20 (range, 2 to 28, P < .001). None of the SP-SAP patients but 8 of 17 of the PSARP patients had constipation requiring diet or oral medication. Two PSARP patients and four SP-SAP patients had occasional faecal accidents. The median daily bowel movements in the PSARP group was one (range, one to four) and in the SP-SAP group, three (range, one to five, P < .001). The PSARP patients had significantly higher anorectal resting and squeeze pressures and voluntary sphincter force (cm/H2O, PSARP: mean resting, 47+/-9; mean squeeze, 106+/-29; mean voluntary sphincter force, 60+/-22; SP/SAP: mean resting, 27+/-10; mean squeeze, 68+/-22; mean voluntary sphincter force, 41+/-17; P < .01). Thirteen (76%) of the 17 PSARP patients and none of SP-SAP patients had positive rectoanal reflex indicating functional internal sphincter.

Conclusions: In boys with high anorectal anomalies, PSARP clearly is superior to sacroperineal and sacroabdominoperineal pull-through in terms of long-term bowel function and faecal continence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources