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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2006 Dec 28;12(48):7864-8.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i48.7864.

Colonic exclusion and combined therapy for refractory constipation

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Colonic exclusion and combined therapy for refractory constipation

Hong-Yun Peng et al. World J Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Aim: To investigate the therapeutic effectiveness of colonic exclusion and combined therapy for refractory constipation.

Methods: Thirty-two patients with refractory constipation were randomly divided into treatment group (n = 14) and control group (n = 18). Fourteen patients in treatment group underwent colonic exclusion and end-to-side colorectal anastomosis. Eighteen patients in control group received subtotal colectomy and end-to-end colorectal anastomosis. The therapeutic effects of the operations were assessed by comparing the surgical time, incision length, volume of blood losses, hospital stay, recovery rate and complication incidence. All patients received long-term follow-up.

Results: All operations were successful and patients recovered fully after the operations. In comparison of treatment group and control group, the surgical time (h), incision length (cm), volume of blood losses (mL), hospital stay (d) were 87 +/- 16 min vs 194 +/- 23 min (t = 9.85), 10.4 +/- 0.5 cm vs 21.2 +/- 1.8 cm (t = 14.26), 79.5 +/- 31.3 mL vs 286.3 +/- 49.2 mL (t = 17.24), and 11.8 +/- 2.4 d vs 18.6 +/- 2.6 d (t = 6.91), respectively (P < 0.001 for all). The recovery rate and complication incidence were 85.7% vs 88.9% (P = 0.14 > 0.05), 21.4% vs 33.3% (P = 0.73 > 0.05), respectively.

Conclusion: Colonic exclusion has better therapeutic efficacy on refractory constipation. It has many advantages such as shorter surgical time, smaller incision, fewer blood losses and shorter hospital stay.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Surgical procedures of colonic exclusion. A: Normal gastrointestinal structure in human body; B: Transect the ascending colon at the chosen level with good blood supply; C: Close the distal colon by U-shape sutures and sever the vermiform appendix; D: Lay the distal colon in abdominal cavity. The proximal ascending is made end-to-side anastomosis with rectum.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Pfeifer J, Agachan F, Wexner SD. Surgery for constipation: a review. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39:444–460. - PubMed
    1. Knowles CH, Martin JE. Slow transit constipation: a model of human gut dysmotility. Review of possible aetiologies. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2000;12:181–196. - PubMed
    1. Arce DA, Ermocilla CA, Costa H. Evaluation of constipation. Am Fam Physician. 2002;65:2283–2290. - PubMed
    1. Bassotti G, Chistolini F, Marinozzi G, Morelli A. Abnormal colonic propagated activity in patients with slow transit constipation and constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Digestion. 2003;68:178–183. - PubMed
    1. Platell C, Scache D, Mumme G, Stitz R. A long-term follow-up of patients undergoing colectomy for chronic idiopathic constipation. Aust N Z J Surg. 1996;66:525–529. - PubMed

Publication types