Current practice of diagnosis and treatment for rectourethral fistula in male patients with anorectal malformation: a multicenter questionnaire survey in Japan.

PURPOSE: Surgical procedures for anorectoplasty for anorectal malformations (ARMs), particularly rectourethral fistula (RUF), depend on the institution. We investigated the diagnosis and treatment of RUF in male patients with ARMs in Japan using a questionnaire survey. METHODS: An online survey inquiring about the diagnosis and treatment (diagnostic modalities, surgical approaches, fistula dissection devices, and fistula closure techniques) of each type of ARM in male patients was conducted among institutional members of the Japanese Study Group of Anorectal Anomalies. Fisher's exact test was used to compare surgical methods between posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) and laparoscopy-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP). RESULTS: Sixty-one institutions (100%) completed the survey. LAARP was the preferred approach for high-type ARM (75.4%). PSARP was preferred for intermediate-type ARM (59.0%). Monopolar devices were most commonly used (72.1%) for RUF dissection. Blunt dissection was more frequent in the PSARP group (PSARP vs. LAARP: 55.6 vs. 20.0%, p < 0.005). Cystoscopy/urethroscopy to confirm the extent of dissection was used more frequently in the LAARP group (70.0% vs. 25.0%, p < 0.005). Clips and staplers were used more frequently in the LAARP group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Distinct fistula management strategies for PSARP and LAARP were revealed. Further studies are needed to investigate the postoperative outcomes associated with these practices.

Can Neonatal Pull-through Replace Staged Pull-through for the Management of Anorectal Malformation? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Anorectal malformations (ARMs) are managed classically in three stages - colostomy at birth, anorectal pull-through after 2-3 months, and stoma closure. Single-stage pull-through has been contemplated in neonatal age aimed to reduce the number of procedures, better long-term continence, the better psycho-social status of the child, and reduced cost of treatment, especially in resource-strained countries. We conducted a systematic review comparing neonatal single-stage pull-through with stage pull-through and did a meta-analysis for the outcome and complications. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched and RevMan 5.4.1 was used for the meta-analysis. Fourteen comparative studies including one randomized controlled trial were included in the systematic review for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis included 1845 patients including 866 neonates undergoing single-stage pull-through. There was no statistically significant difference for the occurrence of surgical site infection (odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-2.83), urinary tract injury (OR 1.82, 95% CI: 0.85-3.89), rectal prolapse (OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.21-5.04), anal stenosis/stricture, voluntary bowel movements (OR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.25-3.73), constipation (OR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.61-1.67), soiling (OR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.52-1.51), mortality (OR 1.19, 95% CI: 0.04-39.74), or other complications. However, continence was seen to be better among patients undergoing neonatal pull-through (OR 1.63, 95% CI: 1.12-2.38). Thus, we can recommend single-stage pull-through for managing patients with ARMs in the neonatal age.

Long-term outcomes of male imperforate anus with recto-urethral fistula: laparoscopy-assisted anorectoplasty versus posterior sagittal anorectoplasty.

PURPOSE: A five-parameter fecal continence evaluation questionnaire (FCEQ) and incidence of complications were used for long-term assessment of laparoscopy-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) and posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) for treating male imperforate anus (MIA) with rectobulbar (RB) or rectoprostatic (RP) fistulas. METHODS: Subjects were 64 consecutive Japanese MIA patients with RB or RP fistulas treated at a single institution between 1995 and 2021. FCEQ data collected retrospectively were used to calculate a fecal continence evaluation (FCE) score (best = 10) and coefficient of variation for FCE (FCECV). The statistical significance threshold was defined at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Fistulas were RB (n = 40; LAARP = 25/40, PSARP = 15/40) or RP (n = 24; LAARP = 17/24, PSARP = 7/24). Mean ages at surgery and status of the sacrum were similar (p = 0.06, 0.05 and 0.51). FCE scores in RP-LAARP were consistently higher with less FCECV but differences were only statistically significant from 7 years postoperatively (p < 0.05). While FCE scores for RB-LAARP and RB-PSARP were similar (p = 0.99), FCECV were lower for RB-LAARP compared with RB-PSARP. LAARP was associated with less-wound infections, but greater incidence of anal mucosal prolapse unrelated to preoperative status of the sacrum. CONCLUSION: Long-term postoperative FCEQ assessment favored LAARP for treating MIA with either RB or RP fistulas.

Intraoperative visualization of urethra using illuminating catheter in laparoscopy-assisted anorectoplasty for imperforated anus-A novel and safe technique for preventing urethral injury.

PURPOSE: In this study, we used a near-infrared ray catheter (NIRC) to visualize the urethral line. We herein report our intraoperative visualization technique of the urethra using an illuminating catheter in laparoscopy-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) for imperforated anus. PATIENT AND SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: A 3.0-kg term male neonate with anorectal malformation was delivered. An invertogram revealed the type as intermediate. Transverse colostomy was performed at the left upper abdomen. A recto-bulbar urethral fistula (RBUF) was diagnosed via distal colostogram and voiding cystourethrogram. LAARP was planned at 6 months of age. We performed the operation with four trocars. A 45° 5-mm scope was used to clearly view the deep pelvic space. Before starting rectal dissection, a 6-Fr pig-tail-type NIRC was inserted through the external opening of the urethra to visualize the urethra during the laparoscopic procedure. The catheter tip was placed in the bladder, and excretion of urine was maintained through the NIRC during the procedures. While dissecting the deep pelvic space between the posterior wall of the urethra and anterior wall of the rectum, the exact line of the urethra was clearly confirmed by overlay images of the NIRC. The RBUF was dissected safely using this innovative image-guided technique. Anoplasty was performed between the rectal stump and perineal skin. The postoperative course was uneventful. Oral intake was started on postoperative day 1. Postoperative dynamic urography showed no complications. CONCLUSION: An NIRC is useful for detecting the urethra during LAARP.

Lessons learned from lower urinary tract complications of anorectoplasty for imperforate anus with rectourethral/rectovesical fistula: Laparoscopy-assisted versus posterior sagittal approaches.

PURPOSE: To report the sequelae of and preventive strategies for selected lower urinary tract (LUT) complications, i.e., posterior urethral diverticulum (PUD), intraoperative LUT injuries, postoperative dysuria, and fistula recurrence in male imperforate anus (IA) with rectourethral/rectovesical (RU/RV) fistula after laparoscopy-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) or posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP). METHODS: 153 boys with IA and RU/RV fistula treated 1986-2019 by LAARP (n = 56) or PSARP (n = 97) at two unrelated institutes were studied retrospectively. RESULTS: After mean follow-up of 17.0 years (range: 36.5 days-32.0 years), the overall incidences of LUT complications were: LAARP (6/56; 10.7%); PSARP (7/97; 7.2%); p = 0.55, comprising PUD: LAARP (n = 5), PSARP (n = 0); p = 0.006; injuries: LAARP (n = 0), PSARP (n = 5); p = 0.16; dysuria: LAARP (n = 1), PSARP (n = 1); p>0.999; and recurrence: LAARP (n = 0), PSARP (n = 1); p>0.999. Mean onset of PUD was 5.1 years (range: 1.0-15.1 years). TREATMENT: PUD: surgery (n = 2/5), conservative (n = 3/5); injuries: intraoperative repair (n = 5/5); dysuria: conservative (n = 2/2), and recurrence: redo PSARP (n = 1/1). CONCLUSIONS: Strategies devised to improve dissection accuracy resolved the specific technical issues causing LUT complications (remnant RU fistula dissection in LAARP and blind posterior access in PSARP). Currently, the incidence of new cases of PUD and LUT injuries is zero. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Single-incision laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty for treating children with intermediate-type anorectal malformations and rectobulbar fistula: a comparative study.

PURPOSE: Single-incision laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty (SILAARP) was compared to posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) for treating intermediate-type anorectal malformations (ARMs) with rectobulbar fistula. METHODS: Between December 2011 and January 2016, 48 children with intermediate-type ARMS were treated with SILAARP (n = 34) or PSARP (n = 14) in our centre. Data including demographics, complications, and long-term outcomes were retrospectively compared. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between both groups in terms of median operative time and complications. The length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the SILAARP group than in the PSARP group (6.15 ± 1.10 vs 9.64 ± 4.13 days; p = 0.008). After a mean follow-up of 59.38 ± 13.68 months, the rates of voluntary bowel movements, soiling, and constipation were similar in both groups. Anorectal manometry was performed in 15 and 7 children from the SILAARP and PSARP groups, respectively. Although there were no significant differences in the presence of rectoanal relaxation reflex and high-pressure-zone length, anal canal resting pressure was higher in the SILAARP group than in the PSARP group (33.35 ± 12.95 vs 23.06 ± 8.40 mmHg; p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Both SILAARP and PSARP seemed feasible and effective for treating intermediate-type ARMs with rectobulbar fistula in children. However, SILAARP significantly reduced the length of postoperative hospital stay and improved anal canal resting pressure.

Surgical management of recto-prostatic and recto-bulbar anorectal malformations.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopically assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) was compared to posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) in the treatment of male imperforate anus associated with either recto-prostatic fistula (RPF) or recto-bulbar fistula (RBF). METHOD: 19 RPF patients (12 treated by LAARP and 7 by PSARP) and 26 RBF patients (14 treated by LAARP and 12 by PSARP) between 1995 and 2014 were retrospectively assessed using a fecal continence evaluation questionnaire (FCE) (with a maximum score of 10), an FCE score coefficient variation, as well patients' MRI scores, anorectal angle values (AA), and incidence of postoperative complications. Statistical significance was determined at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Both groups were similar in mean age and mean weight at repair, as well as sacral status. Postoperatively, mean MRI scores, mean AA, and biochemistry were also similar (p = NS). All cases treated with LAARP showed consistently higher and less variable FCES values, fewer wound infection incidence, but greater rectal mucosal prolapse unrelated with sacrum status. Significantly lower doses of postoperative analgesia were needed in all LAARP cases (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Technical outcomes appear to be similar based on imaging studies, but FCES-assessed functional outcomes appear to favor LAARP for treatment of both RPF and RBF.

Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopy-assisted and posterior sagittal anorectoplasties for male imperforate anus with recto-bulbar fistula.

PURPOSE: All reports comparing laparoscopy-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) with posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) in male high-type imperforate anus include a mix of recto-vesical, recto-prostatic, recto-bulbar, and absent fistula cases without focusing on recto-bulbar fistula (RBF), the most challenging type to treat laparoscopically. We compared LAARP with PSARP for treating only RBF. METHOD: We used our fecal continence evaluation questionnaire (FCE; maximum score=10), scoring of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings (MRI scores), and the angle between the rectum and the anal canal (RAA) to assess 20 RBF cases (LAARP=12, PSARP=8) treated from 2000 to 2013 prospectively. RESULTS: Mean ages at surgery, MRI scores, mean RAA, and duration of raised C-reactive protein (6.6 vs. 6.7days; p=NS) were similar. In all cases, postoperative MRI showed no residual fistula and normal urination. LAARP had consistently higher FCE (7.9 vs. 7.8 at 3years; 8.6 vs. 8.3 at 5years; 8.9 vs 8.6 at 7years; p=NS, respectively), less wound infections (0 vs. 37.5%; p<0.05), higher incidence of rectal mucosal prolapse (50.0 vs. 0%; p<0.05), and required less analgesia (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Although LAARP and PSARP are comparable for treating RBF, LAARP is associated with less wound infections and higher incidence of rectal mucosal prolapse.