Use of antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy in colorectal reconstruction / 中华胃肠外科杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To explore the feasibility and functional outcome of antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy in colorectal reconstruction.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Fifty-six patients who underwent antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy were retrospectively studied. Indications for antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy included slow transit constipation(n=44), synchronous colon cancer or colonic polyps(n=5), acute obstructing left colon carcinoma(n=4), and adult megacolon(n=3).</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Short-term postoperative complications included wound infections(n=5), 3 lymphatic leakages(n=3), and inflammatory small bowel obstruction(n=1). One month after antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy, the median frequency of daily bowel movement was 4.0(range, 2-6). After a median follow-up of 4 years(range, 1 month to 7 years), the median daily bowel frequency was 2.5(range, 0.5-4.0). Five patients suffered from long-term postoperative complications including small bowel obstruction(n=3), incision hernia(n=1), and mild cecal dilatation(n=1). The mean Wexner incontinence score was 4.2±1.1.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy is safe and effective for colorectal reconstruction.</p>

Efficacy comparison of subtotal colectomy with antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy and total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis for patients with slow transit constipation / 中华胃肠外科杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To compare the efficacy between subtotal colectomy with antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy and total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (TAC-IRA) for patients with severe refractory slow transit constipation(STC).</p><p><b>METHODS</b>During 1999 to 2002, TAC-IRA was the preferred procedure for 20 STC patients in our department. From 2003 to 2005, 17 STC patients underwent subtotal colectomy plus antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy. Clinical data of the two groups were collected and compared retrospectively.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>There were no significant differences in basic preoperative clinical data between the two groups. During the follow-up period, the time of daily defecation in the antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy group was less than that of TAC-IRA group (2.4+/-0.9 vs 3.4+/-0.8, P=0.0014), meanwhile the Wexner continence score was significantly lower in the antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy group (4.3+/-1.8 vs 5.8+/-1.9, P=0.0223). Barium enema after subtotal colectomy showed that residual ascending colon and cecum presented a sign of "reservoir".</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Subtotal colectomy with antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy is a better method for appropriately selected patients with STC than TAC-IRA.</p>