eISSN: 1897-4317
ISSN: 1895-5770
Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny
Bieżący numer Archiwum Artykuły zaakceptowane O czasopiśmie Rada naukowa Bazy indeksacyjne Prenumerata Kontakt Zasady publikacji prac
Panel Redakcyjny
Zgłaszanie i recenzowanie prac online
NOWOŚĆ
Portal dla gastroenterologów!
www.egastroenterologia.pl
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
2/2023
vol. 18
 
Poleć ten artykuł:
Udostępnij:
List do Redakcji

Perineal pseudocontinent colostomy: an alternative method to promote patients’ satisfaction and safety?

Georgios-Ioannis Verras
1
,
Dimitrios Filis
2
,
Ioannis Panagiotopoulos
3
,
Elias Liolis
4
,
Dimitrios Kehagias
1
,
Dimitrios Bousis
4
,
Ioannis Perdikaris
1
,
Charalampos Kaplanis
1
,
Levan Tchabashvili
1
,
Francesk Mulita
1

  1. Department of General Surgery, General University Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece
  2. Department of Surgery, "St. Andrew" General Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece
  3. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, General University Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece
  4. Department of Internal Medicine,General University Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece
Gastroenterology Rev 2023; 18 (2): 216–218
Data publikacji online: 2022/09/07
Plik artykułu:
Pobierz cytowanie
 
Metryki PlumX:
 

A review of the advantages and disadvantages of perineal colostomy is interesting [1]. Within the community of colorectal surgeons, when one thinks of low-lying rectal cancer, undoubtedly, they consider the follow-up question: “How far from the sphincter?”. The above statement goes to show just how important sphincter-preserving techniques in rectal cancer surgery have become. However, dealing with cancerous growth is often a daunting task, and one that fails to conform with the surgeon’s expectations. Thus, while we utilize newer approaches for sphincter preservation, be it laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection (LAS), recommending chemoradiation treatment to achieve sphincter preservation and seeking modern staplers that will allow for the most marginal anastomosis, there are a number of rectal cancer patients who are, unfortunately, not candidates for LAS. These patients, usually undergo total colonic and rectal excision, a procedure known as abdominoperineal resection (APR), which obliterates the natural anal orifice and results in the construction of a permanent abdominal ostomy.

It is evident that the quality of life (QoL) of such patients is greatly compromised when compared to their healthy control counterparts [2, 3]. In particular, ostomy creation seems to be related to diminished body image feelings among patients as well as adding further financial concerns for them, both of these closely related to the presence of an ostomy bag [4]. A comparison of APR with LAS patients further revealed that not only do the APR patients suffer the same anxiety and QoL reduction due to rectal cancer, but the treatment-specific subgroup also reported lower QoL scores specifically for body image and sexual problems, and was also more prone to constipation than patients in the LAS group [5]. A paired analysis between patients undergoing LAS and APR revealed that APR patients had significantly lower physical functioning scores and future perspective scores, as well as worse sexual participation and enjoyment scores [6]. A recent multicentre study also showcased worse long-term QoL scores, especially when sexual and urinary functionality were assessed [7]. Such results still disagree with other studies. However, none of them are match controlled. Nevertheless, while it is evident that a trend towards worse QoL in APR patients exists, more trials utilizing larger study populations are required to confirm these results [8, 9].

As described in the review article, one possible solution to the diminishing of QoL through permanent ostomy creation is to attempt the construction of a neo-sphincter after APR. This is achieved by preparing a bowel segment as one would for permanent ostomy creation, only this time it is reinforced with a muscular layer (usually a short bowel-derived muscular layer, or gracilis graft) that acts as a new sphincter in the place of the resected one [10]. Adding to this process the placement of the ostomy through the natural anal orifice, a functional perineal colostomy can be constructed. There have been a few studies assessing the technique’s potential, centred around patient satisfaction and continence. Almost every report describes patient satisfaction rates beyond 80% [1117]. In addition, these patient series indicate that patients were quick to adapt to their newly formed perineal colostomy and its care, and even though most patients required colonic irrigation, they were able to achieve regular bowel function through planning and controlled diet [14, 15, 1719]. In other words, the perineal colostomy method seems to allow for a great number of patients to not alter their behaviour and achieve a level of bowel control that in many instances matches their preoperative status.

The patient satisfaction is evident in a report by Souadka et al., a surgical team in Morocco, who published several works on perineal colostomy. In their cohort of 146 patients, only one reported dissatisfaction, and none of the enrolled patients stated that they would prefer a standard abdominal colostomy, even when the conversion was offered [14]. Reports like this also address another big parameter for QoL estimation, which is the social, economic, and religious standpoints of the patients. In particular, ostomy creation has been associated with severe social isolation and anxiety in Muslim populations, with patients reporting feelings of “uncleanliness” that stop them from attending religious events [20, 21]. It seems that restoration of the natural anal orifice and management of bowel movements from there instead of an ostomy bag offers a sense of normality in these patients [4, 6, 22, 23]. Postoperative ostomy complications are well recorded and studied from a physiological point of view, but what about the economic burden they ensue on patients? It has been estimated that total healthcare costs in a 120-day period are approximately $80,000 higher for patients with ostomy-related complications than for their uncomplicated counterparts [24]. A study by Kirzin et al. compared APR patients having standard abdominal colostomy with APR patients who underwent perineal colostomy construction. They were able to demonstrate clear advantages regarding postoperative perineal complications, surgical wound healing time, as well as a clear advantage in patients who underwent radiotherapy (a subgroup that is more prone to ostomy-related complications postoperatively [25]. In addition, the perineal colostomy maintenance requires only water-soluble enemas, with some studies using plain water instead, without the need for lengthy training or complex application instructions [11, 14, 26, 27]. As such, one could clearly hypothesize that perineal colostomy in lieu of standard abdominal ostomies could stand to benefit patients even from an economical and cost-effective standpoint, and would be an almost ideal solution for populations with no immediate access to advanced healthcare institutions, in impoverished parts of the world, and one that would be in line with their cultural and religious beliefs.

Of course, no surgical technique comes without its criticism and its negative side. Perhaps the most obvious point is that, despite achieving a degree of continence in most patients, this technique does not fully reconstitute the anal sphincter, and there will be some soiling or gas incontinence [27]. However, such instances in the published literature concern the minority of patients in each surgical series. The need for daily or twice-daily irrigation and enema self-administration is also something that patients are a bit wary of, according to reports, but the vast majority of them (should they adhere to instructions) will manage to schedule their bowel movements satisfyingly [11, 17, 28, 29]. Reports of serious complications such as perineal sepsis, wound dehiscence, and bleeding are also found in the literature; however, they concern older, smaller cohorts and can be attributed to lack of proper surgical instruments or the technique itself being less evolved [26, 28, 30].

In conclusion, perineal colostomy seems to be a promising reconstruction technique that has evolved over the years. Literature suggests clear advantages over standard abdominal ostomy, which stretch well beyond surgical outcomes by providing a solution to eradicate discrepancies in medical care and make the ostomy application more favourable for patients’ specific cultural and economic backgrounds. Although favourable results already exist in the current literature, they have to be tested on a larger scale via multicentric randomized trials in order for this technique to be routinely implemented in surgical practice.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1 

Mulita F, Tepetes K, Verras G, et al. Perineal colostomy: advantages and disadvantages. Gastroenterology Rev 2022; 17: 89-95.

2 

Fernández-Martínez D, Rodríguez-Infante A, Otero-Díez JL, et al. Is my life going to change? A review of quality of life after rectal resection. J Gastrointest Oncol 2020; 11: 91-101.

3 

Vironen JH, Kairaluoma M, Aalto AM, Kellokumpu IH. Impact of functional results on quality of life after rectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49: 568-78.

4 

Sideris L, Zenasni F, Vernerey D, et al. Quality of life of patients operated on for low rectal cancer: impact of the type of surgery and patients’ characteristics. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48: 2180-91.

5 

Guren MG, Eriksen MT, Wiig JN, et al. Quality of life and functional outcome following anterior or abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005; 31: 735-42.

6 

Konanz J, Herrle F, Weiss C, et al. Quality of life of patients after low anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer-a matched-pair analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2013; 28: 679-88.

7 

Kang SB, Cho JR, Jeong SY, et al. Quality of life after sphincter preservation surgery or abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer (ASPIRE): a long-term prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Reg Heal–West Pacific 2021; 6: 87.

8 

How P, Stelzner S, Branagan G, et al. Comparative quality of life in patients following abdominoperineal excision and low anterior resection for low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2012; 55: 400-6.

9 

Campelo P, Barbosa E. Functional outcome and quality of life following treatment for rectal cancer. J Coloproctol 2016; 36: 251-61.

10 

Hussain A, Vasas P, Kirk K, et al. Etiology of leaks following sleeve gastrectomy: current evidence. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 2017; 27: 119-22.

11 

Farroni N, Van Den Bosch A, Haustermans K, et al. Perineal colostomy with appendicostomy as an alternative for an abdominal colostomy: symptoms, functional status, quality of life, and perceived health. Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50: 817-24.

12 

Nassar OAH. Modified pseudocontinent perineal colostomy: a special technique. Dis Colon Rectum 2011; 54: 718-28.

13 

Azizi R, Alvandipour M, Shoar S, Mahjoubi B. Combination of pseudocontinent perineal colostomy and appendicostomy: a new approach in the treatment of low rectal cancer. Surg Innov 2013; 20: 471-7.

14 

Souadka A, Majbar MA, El Harroudi T, et al. Perineal pseudocontinent colostomy is safe and efficient technique for perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection for rectal adenocarcinoma. BMC Surg 2015; 15: 11-6.

15 

Wang M, Kang X, Wang H, Guan W. A technique of continent perineal colostomy after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection. Tech Coloproctol 2014; 18: 759-60.

16 

da Silva AL, Hayck J, Deoti B. Perineal colostomy: an alternative to avoid permanent abdominal colostomy: operative technique, results and reflection. Arq Bras Cir Dig 2014; 27: 243-6.

17 

Souadka A, Majbar MA, Amrani L, Souadka A. Perineal pseudocontinent colostomy for ultra-low rectal adenocarcinoma: the muscular graft as a pseudosphincter. Acta Chir Belg 2016; 116: 278-81.

18 

Kirzin S, Lazorthes F, De Gorce HN, et al. Benefits of perineal colostomy on perineal morbidity after abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 2010; 53: 1265-71.

19 

Nogueira LP, Mota SD, Flauzino TDA, et al. Perineal colostomy: an option in the treatment of inferior rectal and anal canal cancer. J Coloproctol 2014; 34: 4-8.

20 

Black P. Cultural and religious beliefs in stoma care nursing. Br J Nurs 2009; 18: 790-93.

21 

Habib A, Connor MJ, Boxall NE, et al. Improving quality of life for Muslim patients requiring a stoma: a critical review of theological and psychosocial issues. Surg Pract 2020; 24: 29-36.

22 

Souadka A, Majbar MA, El Harroudi T, et al. Perineal pseudocontinent colostomy is safe and efficient technique for perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection for rectal adenocarcinoma. BMC Surg 2015; 15: 40.

23 

Azizi R, Alvandipour M, Shoar S, Mahjoubi B. Combination of pseudocontinent perineal colostomy and appendicostomy: a new approach in the treatment of low rectal cancer. Surg Innov 2013; 20: 471-7.

24 

Taneja C, Netsch D, Rolstad BS, et al. Clinical and economic burden of peristomal skin complications in patients with recent ostomies. J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs 2017; 44: 350.

25 

Kirzin S, Lazorthes F, De Gorce HN, et al. Benefits of perineal colostomy on perineal morbidity after abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 2010; 53: 1265-71.

26 

Santoro E, Tirelli C, Scutari F, et al. Continent perineal colostomy by transposition of gracilis muscles–technical remarks and results in 14 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 1994; 37 (2 Suppl): S73-80.

27 

Lasser P, Dubé P, Guillot JM, Elias D. Pseudocontinent perineal colostomy following abdominoperineal resection: technique and findings in 49 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 2001; 27: 49-53.

28 

Gamagami RA, Chiotasso P, Lazorthes F. Continent perineal colostomy after abdominoperineal resection: outcome after 63 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 1999; 42: 626-30.

29 

Dumont F, Ayadi M, Goéré D, et al. Comparison of fecal continence and quality of life between intersphincteric resection and abdominoperineal resection plus perineal colostomy for ultra-low rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 2013; 108: 225-9.

30 

Velitchkov NG, Kirov GK, Losanoff JE, et al. Abdominoperineal resection and perineal colostomy for low rectal cancer: the Lazaro da Silva technique. Dis Colon Rectum 1997; 40: 530-3.

Copyright: © 2022 Termedia Sp. z o. o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
 
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.