Patton Vicki, Lubowski David Z
1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. George Hospital and University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia 2. Faculty of Nursing, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2015 Apr;58(4):457-62. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000341.
Antegrade colonic enemas are used in selected adult patients with defecatory disorders. Conduit stenosis requiring revisional surgery is common.
The aim of the study was to determine whether stenosis could be avoided by using an indwelling antegrade continence enema catheter in an appendiceal or cecal conduit, and to describe medium-term clinical outcomes.
This study was a retrospective case series.
The study was conducted at a tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia.
Adults administering antegrade colonic enemas to manage defecatory disorders were selected for the study.
Patients with an indwelling antegrade continence enema catheter completed a face-to-face survey when they attended the clinic for catheter change. A postal survey was sent to nonattenders, and, if it was not returned, the patient was contacted, and the survey was completed by telephone. The survey asked about irrigation techniques, satisfaction, confidence to manage, and continence, using quantitative scores.
Fifty-four patients (45 female; mean age, 49 years) had constipation (n = 31), incontinence (n = 6), both incontinence and constipation (n = 2) or obstructed defecation due to gracilis neosphincter (n = 5), congenital anomalies (n = 8), or spinal injuries (n = 2). Thirty-five patients (65%) continued to irrigate for a mean follow-up of 5.5 years (range, 4 months to 13.7 years). Mean enema volume was 1178 mL (95% CI, 998-1357; range, 350-2000 mL), and half the patients added a stimulant to the irrigation. Mean total toileting time was 59 minutes (95% CI, 48-66; range, 15-120 minutes). Twenty-one patients had incontinence between irrigations, and in 17% incontinence was severe (St. Mark score >12). Satisfaction (visual analogue scale = 8.1) and confidence to partake in social activities (visual analogue scale = 8.2) and all-day activities (visual analogue scale = 7.1) were high. Complications included superficial wound infection (n = 15), wound infection requiring surgery (n = 6), paraconduit hernia (n = 2), and indwelling antegrade continence enema catheter dislodgement (n = 33). There was no conduit track stenosis.
The study is a medium-term retrospective case series using patient-reported outcomes and clinical records without a control group.
With the use of the indwelling antegrade continence enema catheter, appendicostomy and cecostomy stenosis requiring revisional surgery was avoided. Antegrade colonic irrigation failed in about one-third of cases; in the 65% who continued to irrigate, satisfactory functional outcome was achieved.
顺行结肠灌肠法用于部分患有排便障碍的成年患者。需要再次手术的导管狭窄很常见。
本研究旨在确定在阑尾或盲肠导管中使用留置顺行节制灌肠导管是否可以避免狭窄,并描述中期临床结果。
本研究为回顾性病例系列研究。
研究在澳大利亚悉尼的一家三级转诊医院进行。
选择采用顺行结肠灌肠法治疗排便障碍的成年患者进行研究。
留置顺行节制灌肠导管的患者在到诊所更换导管时完成面对面调查。向未就诊者发送邮寄调查问卷,如果未回复,则联系患者并通过电话完成调查。该调查使用定量评分询问了冲洗技术、满意度、管理信心和节制情况。
54例患者(45例女性;平均年龄49岁)患有便秘(n = 31)、失禁(n = 6)、失禁和便秘(n = 2)或因股薄肌新括约肌、先天性异常(n = 8)或脊髓损伤(n = 2)导致的排便梗阻。35例患者(65%)继续冲洗,平均随访5.5年(范围4个月至13.7年)。平均灌肠量为1178 mL(95%CI,998 - 1357;范围350 - 2000 mL),一半的患者在冲洗液中添加了刺激性药物。总的排便平均时间为59分钟(95%CI,48 - 66;范围15 - 120分钟)。21例患者在两次冲洗之间出现失禁,其中17%为严重失禁(圣马克评分>12)。满意度(视觉模拟评分 = 8.1)、参与社交活动的信心(视觉模拟评分 = 8.2)和全天活动的信心(视觉模拟评分 = 7.1)都很高。并发症包括浅表伤口感染(n = 15)、需要手术的伤口感染(n = 6)、导管旁疝(n = 2)和留置顺行节制灌肠导管移位(n = 33)。没有导管通道狭窄。
本研究是一个中期回顾性病例系列,使用患者报告的结果和临床记录,没有对照组。
使用留置顺行节制灌肠导管可避免需要再次手术的阑尾造口术和盲肠造口术狭窄。顺行结肠冲洗在约三分之一的病例中失败;在继续冲洗的65%的患者中,取得了满意的功能结果。