Advertisement

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 169–175 | Cite as

Anterograde colonic irrigations by percutaneous endoscopic caecostomy in refractory colorectal functional disorders

  • Julie Ricard
  • Lucille QuénéhervéEmail author
  • Chloé Lefevre
  • Marc Le Rhun
  • Edouard Chabrun
  • Emilie Duchalais-Dassonneville
  • Guillaume Meurette
  • Yann Touchefeu
  • Stanislas Bruley des Varannes
  • Frank Zerbib
  • Emmanuel Coron
Original Article
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

In case reports or small studies, percutaneous endoscopic caecostomy (PEC) has been proposed as an alternative to the Malone intervention to perform antegrade colonic enemas. Our goal was to assess the feasibility, efficacy, and tolerance of PEC in a large group of patients with refractory colorectal functional disorders.

Methods

From September 2006 to April 2014, all patients undergoing PEC for constipation, fecal incontinence, and incontinence after rectal resection in two expert centers were studied. The PEC procedure consisted in anchoring the caecum to the abdominal wall (caecopexy) and placing a specifically designed tube in the colonic lumen to perform antegrade enemas. The quality of life (GIQLI), constipation (Kess), and incontinence (Cleveland) scores were assessed before PEC and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months.

Results

A total of 69 patients were included. GIQLI scores were significantly improved in constipation group (n = 43), incontinence group (n = 19), and rectal resection group (n = 10). In the constipation group, Kess score decreased from 25.9 before PEC to 20.6 at 2 years (p = 0.01). In the incontinence and post-rectal resection groups, Cleveland scores decreased from 14.3 before PEC to 2.7 at 6 months (p = 0.01) and to 10.4 at 2 years (p = 0.04). Overall, PEC was considered successful by patients in 58%, 74%, and 90% of cases, in constipation, incontinence, and rectal resection groups, respectively. Chronic pain (52%) at the catheter site was the most frequent complication.

Conclusions

Percutaneous endoscopic caecostomy for antegrade colonic enemas improves significantly the quality of life of patients with colorectal disorder refractory to medical treatment.

Keywords

Colorectal functional disorders Endoscopic treatment Constipation Fecal incontinence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the staff of the Digestive disease institute, especially the stomal therapy nurses Cathy Serage and Guylene Fachet, and the endoscopy staff.

Funding

The authors have not received any funding for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

E Coron has received speaker’s fees from Cook medical and Fujifilm, and is member of the board of Medtronic. J Ricard, L Quénéhervé, C Lefevre, M Le Rhun, E Chabrun, E Duchalais-Dassonneville, G Meurette, Y Touchefeu, S Bruley des Varannes, and F Zerbib have nothing to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Mason HJ, Serrano-Ikkos E, Kamm MA (2000) Psychological morbidity in women with idiopathic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol 95(10):2852–2857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belsey J, Greenfield S, Candy D, Geraint M (2010) Systematic review: impact of constipation on quality of life in adults and children. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 31(9):938–949Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dudekula A, Huftless S, Bielefeldt K (2015) Colectomy for constipation: time trends and impact based on the US Nationwide inpatient sample, 1998-2011. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 42(11–12):1281–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malone PS, Ransley PG, Kiely EM (1990) Preliminary report: the antegrade continence enema. Lancet Lond Engl 336(8725):1217–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gerharz EW, Vik V, Webb G, Leaver R, Shah PJ, Woodhouse CR (1997) The value of the MACE (Malone antegrade colonic enema) procedure in adult patients. J Am Coll Surg 185(6):544–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kiely EM, Ade-Ajayi N, Wheeler RA (1994) Caecal flap conduit for antegrade continence enemas. Br J Surg 81(8):1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marsh PJ, Kiff ES (1996) Ileocaecostomy: an alternative surgical procedure for antegrade colonic enema. Br J Surg 83(4):507–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christensen P, Buntzen S, Krogh K, Laurberg S (2001) Ileal neoappendicostomy for antegrade colonic irrigation. Br J Surg 88(12):1637–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lees NP, Hodson P, Hill J, Pearson RC, MacLennan I (2004) Long-term results of the antegrade continent enema procedure for constipation in adults. Color Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel 6(5):362–368Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heshmat S, DeFoor W, Minevich E, Reddy P, Reeves D, Sheldon C (2008) Use of customized MIC-KEY gastrostomy button for management of MACE stomal complications. Urology 72(5):1026–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meurette G, Lehur P-A, Coron E, Regenet N (2010) Long-term results of Malone’s procedure with antegrade irrigation for severe chronic constipation. Gastroentérologie Clin Biol 34(3):209–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Uno Y (2006) Introducer method of percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy and antegrade continence enema by use of the Chait trapdoor cecostomy catheter in patients with adult neurogenic bowel. Gastrointest Endosc 63(4):666–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duchalais E, Meurette G, Mantoo SK, Le Rhun M, Varannes SB d, Lehur P-A et al (2015) Percutaneous endoscopic caecostomy for severe constipation in adults: feasibility, durability, functional and quality of life results at 1 year follow-up. Surg Endosc 29(3):620–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eypasch E, Williams JI, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ure BM, Schmülling C, Neugebauer E et al (1995) Gastrointestinal quality of life index: development, validation and application of a new instrument. Br J Surg 82(2):216–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slim K, Bousquet J, Kwiatkowski F, Lescure G, Pezet D, Chipponi J (1999) First validation of the French version of the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI). Gastroentérologie Clin Biol 23(1):25–31Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Knowles CH, Eccersley AJ, Scott SM, Walker SM, Reeves B, Lunniss PJ (2000) Linear discriminant analysis of symptoms in patients with chronic constipation: validation of a new scoring system (KESS). Dis Colon Rectum 43(10):1419–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jorge JM, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36(1):77–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Biyani D, Barrow E, Hodson P, Watson AJM, Maclennan I (2007) Endoscopically placed caecostomy buttons: a trial ACE procedure. Color Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel 9(4):373–376Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klaassen Z, Marshall E, Tubbs RS, Louis RG, Wartmann CT, Loukas M (2011) Anatomy of the ilioinguinal and iliohypogastric nerves with observations of their spinal nerve contributions. Clin Anat N Y N 24(4):454–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoy NY, Metcalfe P, Kiddoo DA (2013) Outcomes following fecal continence procedures in patients with neurogenic bowel dysfunction. J Urol 189(6):2293–2297CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie Ricard
    • 1
  • Lucille Quénéhervé
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Chloé Lefevre
    • 3
  • Marc Le Rhun
    • 2
  • Edouard Chabrun
    • 1
  • Emilie Duchalais-Dassonneville
    • 2
    • 3
  • Guillaume Meurette
    • 2
  • Yann Touchefeu
    • 2
    • 3
  • Stanislas Bruley des Varannes
    • 2
    • 3
  • Frank Zerbib
    • 1
  • Emmanuel Coron
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Digestive Oncology, Centre Médico-chirurgical MagellanBordeaux University Hospital, and Université de Bordeaux and Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)BordeauxFrance
  2. 2.Institut des Maladies de l’Appareil Digestif, IMAD, CHU NantesHopital Hôtel-DieuNantesFrance
  3. 3.Université de Nantes, INSERM, IMAD, The enteric nervous system in gut and brain disordersUniversité Bretagne LoireNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations