World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 1137–1145 | Cite as

Taeniectomy Versus Transverse Coloplasty as Neorectum After Low Rectal Resection

  • Ahmed Farag
  • Abdrabou N. Mashhour
  • Mohamed Yehia ElbarmelgiEmail author
Original Scientific Report



Restorative surgery for rectal cancer is usually criticized by its functional outcomes. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy “taeniectomy” pouch in comparison with transverse coloplasty pouch.

Study design

This was a prospective controlled study. Most patients who were candidate for low rectal resection presented to colorectal unit at Cairo university hospitals during the period from February 2013 to August 2016 were divided into two groups. The total number of patients enrolled in the study was 180 patients. Ninety patients were subjected to low rectal resection with the transverse coloplasty pouch, and 90 patients were subjected to low rectal resection with the newly described taeniectomy pouch. Safety and feasibility of both techniques were assessed about leakage, operative time, difficulty in evacuation, incontinence, number of daily motions and postoperative urgency. Both groups were assessed clinically, by means of defecography and anorectal manometry.


There was no significant statistical difference between taeniectomy and transverse coloplasty regarding postoperative leakage (P value = 0.988), postoperative mortality (P value = 0.99) and functional outcomes including number of motions per day (P value was 0.403 at 3 months and 0.361 at 12 months), urgency (P value was 0.688), continence grade (P value was 0.320 and 0.683 in 3 and 12 months, respectively) and manometric findings. However, taeniectomy is statistically significant better in terms of operative time (P value = 0.001).


Taeniectomy is a newly described, technically easier technique for pouch formation after low rectal resection that can be used as a safe and effective alternative for the widely used transverse coloplasty.


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics committee approval

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Cairo University.


  1. 1.
    McDonald PJ, Heald RJ (1983) A survey of postoperative function after rectal anastomosis with circular stapling devices. Br J Surg 70:727–729PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lewis WG, Martin IG, Williamson ME et al (1995) Why do some patients experience poor functional results after anterior resection of the rectum for carcinoma? Dis Colon Rectum 38:259–263PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parks AG, Nicholls RJ (1978) Proctocolectomy without ileostomy for ulcerative colitis. BMJ 2:85–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lazorthes F, Fages P, Chiotasso P, Lemozy J, Bloom E (1986) Resection of the rectum with construction of a colonic reservoir and colo-anal anastomosis for carcinoma of the rectum. Br J Surg 73:136–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kusunoki M, Yanagi H, Shoji Y, Yamamura T, Utsunomiya J (1997) Anoabdominal rectal resection and colonic J pouch-anal anastomosis: 10 years’ experience. Br J Surg 84:1277–1280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Z’graggen K, Maurer CA, Mettler D, Stoupis C, Wildi S, Buchler MW (1999) A novel colon pouch and its comparison with a straight coloanal and colon J-pouch-anal anastomosis: preliminary results in pigs. Surgery 125:105–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mantyh CR, Hull TL, Fazio VW (2001) Coloplasty in low colo-rectal anastomosis: manometric and functional comparison with straight and colonic J-pouch anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 44:37–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farag A, Mashhour AN, Elbarmelgi MY, Raslan MM, Abdelsalam AM, Mohsen AA (2017) Taeniectomy pouch as neorectum after low rectal resection. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 99(7):555–558PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jorge JMN, Wexner S (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36:77–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hida J, Yoshifuji T, Tokoro T, Inoue K, Matsuzaki T, Okuno K, Shiozaki H, Yasutomi M (2004) Comparison of long-term functional results of colonic J-pouch and straight anastomosis after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a five-year follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum 47(10):1578–1585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mortensen NJ, Ramirez JM, Takeuchi N et al (1995) Colonic J pouch-anal anastomosis after rectal excision for carcinoma: functional outcome. Br J Surg 82:611–613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ho YH, Brown S, Heah SM, Tsang C, Seow-Choen F, Eu KW, Tang CL (2002) Comparison of J-pouch and coloplasty pouch for low rectal cancers: a randomized, controlled trial investigating functional results and comparative anastomotic leak rates. Ann Surg 236:49–55PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pimentel J, Duarte A, Souto P, Patrıcio J (2003) Transverse coloplasty pouch and colonic J-pouch for rectal cancer—a comparative study. Colorectal Dis 5(5):465–470PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Biondo S, Frago S, Cazador AC, Farres R, Olivet F, Golda T, Miguel B, Kreisler E (2013) Long-term functional results from a randomized clinical study of transverse coloplasty compared with colon J-pouch after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Surgery 153(3):383–392PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ho YH, Brown S, Heah SM, Tsang C, Seow-Choen F, Eu KW, Tang CL (2002) Comparison of J-pouch and coloplasty pouch for low rectal cancers. a randomized, controlled trial investigating functional results and comparative anastomotic leak rates. Ann Surg 236(1):49–55PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Z’graggen K, Maurer CA, Birrer S, Giachino D, Kern B, Buchler MW (2001) A new surgical concept for rectal replacement after low anterior resection: the transverse coloplasty pouch. Ann Surg 234:780–785PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fazio VW, Zutshi M, Remzi FH, Parc Y, Ruppert R, Fürst A, Celebrezze J Jr, Galanduik S, Aorangi G, Hyman N, Bokey L, Tiret E, Kirchdorfer B, Medich D, Tietze M, Hull T, Hammel J (2007) A randomized multicenter trial to compare long-term functional outcome, quality of life, and complications of surgical procedures for low rectal cancers. Ann Surg 246(3):481–488 (discussion 488–90) PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Köninger Jörg S, Butters M, Redecke JD, Z’graggen K (2004) Transverse coloplasty pouch after total mesorectal excision: functional assessment of evacuation. Dis Colon Rectum 47(10):1586–1593PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General SurgeryCairo UniversityCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations