Evidence Hub

Long-term bowel functional outcomes in rectourethral fistula treated with PSARP: controlled results after 4-29 years of follow-up: a single-institution, cross-sectional study

Kyrklund K, Pakarinen MP, Koivusalo A, Rintala RJ

Journal of pediatric surgery, 2014

20 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) has become the standard surgical treatment for males rectourethral fistula (RUF) at most surgical centers worldwide. We aimed to define the long-term bowel functional outcomes following PSARP for RUF at our institution between 1983 and 2006, with comparison to age- and gender-matched controls.

METHODS: Patients were invited to answer a detailed, previously validated Bowel Function Score (BFS) questionnaire by post. Respondents were matched by age and gender to three controls from the general population who had answered identical questionnaires. Case records were reviewed retrospectively for operative details. Ethical approval was obtained. Social continence was defined as soiling or fecal accidents <1/week and no requirement for changes of underwear or protective aids.

RESULTS: Of 34 (79%) respondents (median age 19 (range, 4-29) years), 74% had voluntary bowel movements (VBMs), 24% were reliant on anterograde continence enema (ACE) washouts, and 1 patient had a colostomy. Impairment of bowel function was significantly higher in all aspects of fecal control among patients than controls (p 12 years (n=20), 50% were completely continent (vs 73% of controls; p=NS). Overall, 76% of respondents were socially continent with or without artificial means in the form of ACE washouts. By BFS score, 39% had a good functional outcome, 27% had a moderate outcome, 9% had a clearly poor score and 24% were living with an ACE.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 20 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free