Division of Urology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
J Urol. 2013 Jun;189(6):2293-7. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.12.052. Epub 2012 Dec 25.
Malone antegrade continence enema and cecostomy button improve quality of life in patients with neurogenic bowel. However, they have not been compared regarding fecal continence outcomes. We compared these 2 procedures with respect to continence, complications and conversions.
We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients who underwent Malone antegrade continence enema or cecostomy at the University of Alberta between January 2006 and January 2011. A total of 26 patients underwent Malone antegrade continence enema, of whom 20 underwent concomitant Monti procedure and bladder augmentation, 5 a laparoscopically assisted procedure and 1 concomitant ileovesicostomy. A total of 23 patients underwent cecostomy, of whom 1 underwent ileovesicostomy, 1 bladder augmentation, 1 a Monti procedure with bladder augmentation and 1 laparoscopic cecostomy. Continence was defined as ability to wear underwear with no accidents at most recent annual followup, which was a minimum of 1 year postoperatively.
Fecal continence rates were 84.6% for Malone antegrade continence enema and 91.3% for cecostomy. There were no statistically significant differences in continence based on procedure (p = 0.48), age (p = 0.97) or gender (p = 0.54). Of patients who underwent cecostomy 8.7% switched to the Malone antegrade continence enema, while 11.5% with Malone antegrade continence enema switched to cecostomy. Mean length of hospital stay for patients undergoing cecostomy vs laparoscopically assisted Malone antegrade continence enema was 4.0 vs 5.2 days (p = 0.15). Complications included stomal pain (23.1% of patients) and difficulty with catheterizing (19.2%) following Malone antegrade continence enema, and difficulty flushing (26.1%) following cecostomy.
There were no significant differences between Malone antegrade continence enema and cecostomy button with respect to fecal continence or complication rates. Each approach poses unique challenges, suggesting that patients and families need to understand the differences to make an individualized choice.
Malone 经肛顺行灌洗造口术和盲肠造口术纽扣可改善神经源性肠患者的生活质量。然而,它们在粪便控制效果方面尚未进行比较。我们比较了这两种方法在控制、并发症和转换方面的效果。
我们回顾性地分析了 2006 年 1 月至 2011 年 1 月期间在阿尔伯塔大学接受 Malone 经肛顺行灌洗造口术或盲肠造口术纽扣的患者的图表。共有 26 例患者接受 Malone 经肛顺行灌洗造口术,其中 20 例同时进行 Monti 手术和膀胱扩大术,5 例腹腔镜辅助手术,1 例同时进行回肠-膀胱吻合术。共有 23 例患者接受盲肠造口术,其中 1 例同时进行回肠-膀胱吻合术,1 例膀胱扩大术,1 例 Monti 手术和膀胱扩大术,1 例腹腔镜盲肠造口术。在最近的年度随访中,能够穿内衣而没有意外发生即被定义为粪便控制,至少随访 1 年。
Malone 经肛顺行灌洗造口术的粪便控制率为 84.6%,盲肠造口术纽扣的粪便控制率为 91.3%。基于手术(p=0.48)、年龄(p=0.97)或性别(p=0.54),粪便控制率无统计学差异。接受盲肠造口术纽扣的患者中,有 8.7%的患者转为 Malone 经肛顺行灌洗造口术,而接受 Malone 经肛顺行灌洗造口术的患者中有 11.5%的患者转为盲肠造口术纽扣。接受盲肠造口术纽扣的患者的平均住院时间为 4.0 天,而接受腹腔镜辅助 Malone 经肛顺行灌洗造口术的患者为 5.2 天(p=0.15)。并发症包括 Malone 经肛顺行灌洗造口术后的造口疼痛(23.1%的患者)和导尿困难(19.2%),盲肠造口术后的冲洗困难(26.1%)。
Malone 经肛顺行灌洗造口术和盲肠造口术纽扣纽扣在粪便控制率或并发症发生率方面无显著差异。每种方法都有其独特的挑战,这表明患者和家属需要了解差异,以便做出个体化的选择。