Transverse coloplasty pouch and colonic J-pouch for rectal cancer--a comparative study
- PMID: 12925082
- DOI: 10.1046/j.1463-1318.2003.00524.x
Transverse coloplasty pouch and colonic J-pouch for rectal cancer--a comparative study
Abstract
Objectives: The introduction of the colonic J-pouch has markedly improved the functional outcome of restorative rectal cancer surgery. However colonic J-pouch surgery can be problematic and may present some late evacuatory problems. To overcome these limitations a novel pouch has been proposed: the transverse coloplasty pouch. The purpose of our study was to compare the functional outcomes of these two different types of pouches--the transverse coloplasty pouch (TCP) and the colonic J-pouch (CJP)--during the first 12 months postoperatively.
Patients and methods: A prospective randomized trial was conducted in which a total of 30 patients with mid and low rectal cancer were submitted either to a transverse coloplasty pouch or a colonic J-pouch. Clinical defaecatory function was assessed and anorectal physiological assessment was carried out, pre-operatively and at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively, by means of a standard clinical questionnaire and by anorectal manometry.
Results: No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups regarding bowel function. The postoperative frequency of daily bowel movements was lower in the TCP group in all the phases of the study (3.9 vs. 4.1 at 3 months; 3.1 vs. 3.4 at 6 months; 2.1 vs. 2.8 at 12 months), the same occurring with fragmentation (33% vs. 40% at 3 months; 26.6%vs. 33.3% at 6 months; 7.1%vs. 14.3% at 12 months). Less urgency was also seen in the TCP group during the first 6 months (20%vs. 26.7%), with identical values at 12 months (14.3% vs. 14.3%). No significant differences were also found concerning incontinence grading and scoring, with TCP patients having less nocturnal leaks. At one year two CJP patients (14.3%) needed the use of enemas to evacuate the pouch and provoke defaecation, a problem never seen in TCP patients. The anorectal manometry data was similar in both types of pouches. The local complication rates were also identical in the two groups (20%); more anastomotic leaks were seen in TCP patients (13.2% vs. 6.6%), without reaching a statistical significance.
Conclusion: The transverse coloplasty pouch has similar functional results but fewer evacuation problems than the J-Pouch, making it a safe and reliable alternative to the colonic J-pouch.
Similar articles
-
Colonic J-pouch vs. coloplasty following resection of distal rectal cancer: early results of a prospective, randomized, pilot study.Dis Colon Rectum. 2003 Sep;46(9):1161-6. doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-6707-x. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003. PMID: 12972958 Clinical Trial.
-
Transverse coloplasty pouch after total mesorectal excision: functional assessment of evacuation.Dis Colon Rectum. 2004 Oct;47(10):1586-93. doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-0671-3. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004. PMID: 15540285
-
Comparison of J-pouch and coloplasty pouch for low rectal cancers: a randomized, controlled trial investigating functional results and comparative anastomotic leak rates.Ann Surg. 2002 Jul;236(1):49-55. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200207000-00009. Ann Surg. 2002. PMID: 12131085 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Meta-analysis of the colon J-pouch vs transverse coloplasty pouch after anterior resection for rectal cancer.Colorectal Dis. 2010 Jul;12(7):624-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01964.x. Epub 2009 Jun 25. Colorectal Dis. 2010. PMID: 19555386 Review.
-
The transverse coloplasty pouch.Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2005 Aug;390(4):355-60. doi: 10.1007/s00423-005-0563-6. Epub 2005 Jun 10. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2005. PMID: 15947942 Review.
Cited by
-
Coloplasty Neorectum versus Straight Anastomosis in Low Rectal Cancers.ISRN Surg. 2014 Jan 30;2014:382371. doi: 10.1155/2014/382371. eCollection 2014. ISRN Surg. 2014. PMID: 24624304 Free PMC article.
-
Transverse Coloplasty Pouch versus Straight Coloanal Anastomosis Following Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: the Functional Benefits May Emerge After Two Years.J Gastrointest Surg. 2023 Nov;27(11):2526-2537. doi: 10.1007/s11605-022-05565-w. Epub 2023 Oct 17. J Gastrointest Surg. 2023. PMID: 37848684
-
Reconstruction techniques after proctectomy: what's the best?Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2007 Aug;20(3):221-30. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-984866. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2007. PMID: 20011203 Free PMC article.
-
Reconstructive techniques after rectal resection for rectal cancer.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;2008(2):CD006040. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006040.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008. PMID: 18425933 Free PMC article.
-
Taeniectomy Versus Transverse Coloplasty as Neorectum After Low Rectal Resection.World J Surg. 2019 Apr;43(4):1137-1145. doi: 10.1007/s00268-018-04890-z. World J Surg. 2019. PMID: 30564920 Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources