Evidence Hub

Malone antegrade continent enema: an alternative to resection in severe defecation disorders

Poirier M, Abcarian H, Nelson R

Diseases of the colon and rectum, 2007

78 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate patient self-reported outcome of the Malone antegrade continent enema at a single institution in patients suffering from severe defecatory disorders.

METHODS: A total of 18 patients (15 females; median age, 31 (range, 12-63) years) underwent a Malone antegrade continent enema (August 1999 to September 2004). The Malone antegrade continent enema technique has been previously described; however, in this series emphasis was placed on method appendix tunneling. Patients' charts were reviewed and follow-up telephone interviews were conducted. Indications for Malone antegrade continent enema were chronic constipation (n = 12), intractable fecal incontinence (n = 5), or both (n = 1). The underlying pathology included neurogenic (n = 2), congenital (n = 4), postsurgery-related (n = 4), irritable bowel syndrome (n = 6), and megarectum (n = 2). The appendix (n = 17) or cecum (n = 1) was used as a conduit.

RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 18.5 (range, 3-67) months. Fourteen patients (78 percent) still use the Malone antegrade continent enema routinely and report good functional outcome. Three patients (20 percent) required stoma creation as subsequent alternate treatment. A total of 10 patients experienced 12 complications: 3 perioperative (infections) and 9 postoperative Malone antegrade continent enema use/nonuse complications (4 stomal orifice strictures, 2 fecal impactions, 2 appendiceal perforations, and 1 irrigation catheter knot). No…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, 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: 78 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