COLOSTOMIES PERINEALES PSEUDO-CONTINENTES APRES AMPUTATION RECTALE POUR CANCER

Translated title of the contribution: Pseudo-continent perineal colostomy after extirpation of the rectum for cancer

D. Elias, P. Lasser, A. Leroux, P. Rougier, M. G. Comandella, M. Deraco

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

From February 1989 to February 1992, 23 pseudocontinent perineal colostomies (PC), performed after abdominoperineal excision for rectal carcinoma, were evaluated. Perineal colostomy was performed using a free autotransplant of smooth muscle, according to Schmidt, associated with colonic irrigation. This procedure was proposed to the younger and more alert patients without advanced rectal carcinoma. These 23 cases represented 35% of the rectal extirpations performed during the same period. Four patients did not accept a PC and preferred, after being fully informed about both types of colostomies, to have a classical iliac colostomy which they thought to be safer. The advantages of this procedure were mainly psychological, as the body scheme and corporeal image were not disturbed. Continence was evaluated in only 21 cases, because two patients had non-specific complications (necrosis of the colonic extremity, and colonic perforation due to enema material). Ten patients were incontinent to flatus, but did not have to wear a sanitary towel, while 11 patients had occasional, minor soiling, requiring the use of a sanitary towel. None of the patients had major incontinence requiring a secondary iliac colostomy. When asked what they thought of results, none said that they were dissatisfied. The degree of satisfaction was subjective and was not correlated with the quality of functional results as seven patients declared themselves satisfied although they had minor soiling, and conversely, two patients were not completely satisfied, even though they had no soiling. Six months after operation, the muscular transplanted ring had disappeared in half of the patients, but this did not seem to have any repercussion of the quality of functional results. We believe that adequate colonic irrigations are essential to obtain good functional results. The method does not compromise carcinological excision and offers the possibility of examining the perineum. Our results are encouraging and have led us to continue this evaluation. Further questions to be answered include: what are the contraindications to PC? Can PC be proposed to all patients, or only to those who refuse an iliac colostomy? Can the surgical technique be improved?

Original languageFrench
Pages (from-to)181-186
Number of pages6
JournalGastroenterologie Clinique et Biologique
Volume17
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 1993

Fingerprint

Colostomy
Rectal Neoplasms
Carcinoma
Flatulence
Perineum
Enema
Autografts
Smooth Muscle
Necrosis
Extremities
Psychology

Keywords

  • anal incontinence
  • perineal colostomy
  • rectal cancer
  • surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Elias, D., Lasser, P., Leroux, A., Rougier, P., Comandella, M. G., & Deraco, M. (1993). COLOSTOMIES PERINEALES PSEUDO-CONTINENTES APRES AMPUTATION RECTALE POUR CANCER. Gastroenterologie Clinique et Biologique, 17(3), 181-186.

COLOSTOMIES PERINEALES PSEUDO-CONTINENTES APRES AMPUTATION RECTALE POUR CANCER. / Elias, D.; Lasser, P.; Leroux, A.; Rougier, P.; Comandella, M. G.; Deraco, M.

In: Gastroenterologie Clinique et Biologique, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1993, p. 181-186.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Elias, D, Lasser, P, Leroux, A, Rougier, P, Comandella, MG & Deraco, M 1993, 'COLOSTOMIES PERINEALES PSEUDO-CONTINENTES APRES AMPUTATION RECTALE POUR CANCER', Gastroenterologie Clinique et Biologique, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 181-186.
Elias, D. ; Lasser, P. ; Leroux, A. ; Rougier, P. ; Comandella, M. G. ; Deraco, M. / COLOSTOMIES PERINEALES PSEUDO-CONTINENTES APRES AMPUTATION RECTALE POUR CANCER. In: Gastroenterologie Clinique et Biologique. 1993 ; Vol. 17, No. 3. pp. 181-186.
@article{cff4b63b391c45cf8e22d0b4dc9703dd,
title = "COLOSTOMIES PERINEALES PSEUDO-CONTINENTES APRES AMPUTATION RECTALE POUR CANCER",
abstract = "From February 1989 to February 1992, 23 pseudocontinent perineal colostomies (PC), performed after abdominoperineal excision for rectal carcinoma, were evaluated. Perineal colostomy was performed using a free autotransplant of smooth muscle, according to Schmidt, associated with colonic irrigation. This procedure was proposed to the younger and more alert patients without advanced rectal carcinoma. These 23 cases represented 35{\%} of the rectal extirpations performed during the same period. Four patients did not accept a PC and preferred, after being fully informed about both types of colostomies, to have a classical iliac colostomy which they thought to be safer. The advantages of this procedure were mainly psychological, as the body scheme and corporeal image were not disturbed. Continence was evaluated in only 21 cases, because two patients had non-specific complications (necrosis of the colonic extremity, and colonic perforation due to enema material). Ten patients were incontinent to flatus, but did not have to wear a sanitary towel, while 11 patients had occasional, minor soiling, requiring the use of a sanitary towel. None of the patients had major incontinence requiring a secondary iliac colostomy. When asked what they thought of results, none said that they were dissatisfied. The degree of satisfaction was subjective and was not correlated with the quality of functional results as seven patients declared themselves satisfied although they had minor soiling, and conversely, two patients were not completely satisfied, even though they had no soiling. Six months after operation, the muscular transplanted ring had disappeared in half of the patients, but this did not seem to have any repercussion of the quality of functional results. We believe that adequate colonic irrigations are essential to obtain good functional results. The method does not compromise carcinological excision and offers the possibility of examining the perineum. Our results are encouraging and have led us to continue this evaluation. Further questions to be answered include: what are the contraindications to PC? Can PC be proposed to all patients, or only to those who refuse an iliac colostomy? Can the surgical technique be improved?",
keywords = "anal incontinence, perineal colostomy, rectal cancer, surgery",
author = "D. Elias and P. Lasser and A. Leroux and P. Rougier and Comandella, {M. G.} and M. Deraco",
year = "1993",
language = "Francese",
volume = "17",
pages = "181--186",
journal = "Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology",
issn = "2210-7401",
publisher = "Elsevier Masson",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - COLOSTOMIES PERINEALES PSEUDO-CONTINENTES APRES AMPUTATION RECTALE POUR CANCER

AU - Elias, D.

AU - Lasser, P.

AU - Leroux, A.

AU - Rougier, P.

AU - Comandella, M. G.

AU - Deraco, M.

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - From February 1989 to February 1992, 23 pseudocontinent perineal colostomies (PC), performed after abdominoperineal excision for rectal carcinoma, were evaluated. Perineal colostomy was performed using a free autotransplant of smooth muscle, according to Schmidt, associated with colonic irrigation. This procedure was proposed to the younger and more alert patients without advanced rectal carcinoma. These 23 cases represented 35% of the rectal extirpations performed during the same period. Four patients did not accept a PC and preferred, after being fully informed about both types of colostomies, to have a classical iliac colostomy which they thought to be safer. The advantages of this procedure were mainly psychological, as the body scheme and corporeal image were not disturbed. Continence was evaluated in only 21 cases, because two patients had non-specific complications (necrosis of the colonic extremity, and colonic perforation due to enema material). Ten patients were incontinent to flatus, but did not have to wear a sanitary towel, while 11 patients had occasional, minor soiling, requiring the use of a sanitary towel. None of the patients had major incontinence requiring a secondary iliac colostomy. When asked what they thought of results, none said that they were dissatisfied. The degree of satisfaction was subjective and was not correlated with the quality of functional results as seven patients declared themselves satisfied although they had minor soiling, and conversely, two patients were not completely satisfied, even though they had no soiling. Six months after operation, the muscular transplanted ring had disappeared in half of the patients, but this did not seem to have any repercussion of the quality of functional results. We believe that adequate colonic irrigations are essential to obtain good functional results. The method does not compromise carcinological excision and offers the possibility of examining the perineum. Our results are encouraging and have led us to continue this evaluation. Further questions to be answered include: what are the contraindications to PC? Can PC be proposed to all patients, or only to those who refuse an iliac colostomy? Can the surgical technique be improved?

AB - From February 1989 to February 1992, 23 pseudocontinent perineal colostomies (PC), performed after abdominoperineal excision for rectal carcinoma, were evaluated. Perineal colostomy was performed using a free autotransplant of smooth muscle, according to Schmidt, associated with colonic irrigation. This procedure was proposed to the younger and more alert patients without advanced rectal carcinoma. These 23 cases represented 35% of the rectal extirpations performed during the same period. Four patients did not accept a PC and preferred, after being fully informed about both types of colostomies, to have a classical iliac colostomy which they thought to be safer. The advantages of this procedure were mainly psychological, as the body scheme and corporeal image were not disturbed. Continence was evaluated in only 21 cases, because two patients had non-specific complications (necrosis of the colonic extremity, and colonic perforation due to enema material). Ten patients were incontinent to flatus, but did not have to wear a sanitary towel, while 11 patients had occasional, minor soiling, requiring the use of a sanitary towel. None of the patients had major incontinence requiring a secondary iliac colostomy. When asked what they thought of results, none said that they were dissatisfied. The degree of satisfaction was subjective and was not correlated with the quality of functional results as seven patients declared themselves satisfied although they had minor soiling, and conversely, two patients were not completely satisfied, even though they had no soiling. Six months after operation, the muscular transplanted ring had disappeared in half of the patients, but this did not seem to have any repercussion of the quality of functional results. We believe that adequate colonic irrigations are essential to obtain good functional results. The method does not compromise carcinological excision and offers the possibility of examining the perineum. Our results are encouraging and have led us to continue this evaluation. Further questions to be answered include: what are the contraindications to PC? Can PC be proposed to all patients, or only to those who refuse an iliac colostomy? Can the surgical technique be improved?

KW - anal incontinence

KW - perineal colostomy

KW - rectal cancer

KW - surgery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027405194&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027405194&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Articolo

C2 - 8330692

AN - SCOPUS:0027405194

VL - 17

SP - 181

EP - 186

JO - Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology

JF - Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology

SN - 2210-7401

IS - 3

ER -