Patients were classified according to their scores into four categories: poor (6–9); fair (9–11); good (12–17); and normal (18–20). We used a questionnaire introduced by Rintala and Lindah 6. Voluntary control, sensation, soiling, stool frequency, constipation, and the social impact of constipation were assessed by the Rintala score 9. The Student t-test, the Pearson χ 2-test, one-way analysis of variance, and the Levine test were used for data analysis using SPSS (ver. 13.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). The person who filled the questionnaire was not a member of the medical team. This study was approved by the ethical committee of the university.
Sixty patients aged 3–17 years (13.63±3.27 years) were included in this study (Table 3). Of the patients, 32 (53.33%) were male and 28 (46.67%) were female (P=0.46). Of them, 29 patients (48.4%) were 3–12 years old and 31 patients were more than 12 years old. The mean of age was 10.77±2.94 years. Out of 60 patients, 29 (48.33%) had low anomaly and 31 (51.67%) had high anomaly (P=0.71).
The mean of scores among all patients was 13.63±3.27. The minimum and the maximum of scores were 7 and 18, respectively. The mean of scores in patients with low-type ARM was 14.5±2.6 and in patients with high-type ARM was 13.19±3.75. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.28).
The mean of scores was 13.34±3.5 among male patients and 13.94±2.9 among female patients. There was no statistically significant difference (P=0.46).
There was no significant correlation between the score and the age of the patients (Pearson coefficient=0.13). The score was significantly higher among patients with fistula (n=51, 13.94±3.19) than among patients without fistula (n=9, 11.8±3.3; P=0.03). Excluding two cases with scrotal-type fistula and rectal atresia, there was no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.06). The average of scores among different types of ARMs is shown in Table 4. The minimum (score=7) score was seen in a patient with rectal atresia and the maximum (score=16) was seen in a patient with scrotal fistula (Table 4).
Poor prognostic cases were seen in 16.12% of patients with high ARM and 3.45% of patients with low ARM (P=0.22). Of 31 patients with high anomaly, 17 (54.83%) had good prognosis. Of 29 patients with low anomaly, 21 (72.41%) had good prognosis (P=0.15, χ 2=1.99). There was no significant difference between high and low ARM regarding their prognosis evaluated by the Rintala score (Table 5).
Fecal soling and some degree of fecal incontinence were seen in 67 and 31.7% of the cases, respectively.
In our study, the male/female ratio was 1.14/1. In the study from South Africa, the male/female ratio was 1.6/1 10. In the study from Pakistan, of 100 neonates with ARM, 77 were male and 23 were female (male/female=3.4/1) 11. Hence, boys are affected more often than girls in these studies.
In the study carried out by Goyal et al. 12, the best prognosis was reported in cases with perineal fistula and poor prognosis was seen in vesical fistula. These findings were similar to our study. In the study by Hassett et al. 13, the best prognosis was reported in cases with perineal followed by vestibular and urethral fistula. In their study, a posterior sagittal approach was used for treatment. A questionnaire was used for the scoring system.
In the study of Kaselas et al. 14, the highest score was seen in patients with perinanal fistula. In our study, the highest score was seen in cases with vaginal fistula (15.1±2.3) followed by perineal fistula (14.6±2.3). Vesical fistula had the poorest prognosis in the study of Kaselas et al. 14 and in our study.
Rintala et al. 9 compared children with low ARM with normal healthy children. They concluded that only half of the children with a low ARM have age-appropriate normal bowel function.
In our study, there is no significant score improvement with increasing age. In some studies, as age increased, there was improvement in their score 9.
Hassink 15 conducted a study on patients with low-type anomaly. Of the patients, 83% showed good prognosis and 15% had fair and poor prognosis. Our findings are similar. In the study of Hassink, there was a positive correlation between prognosis improvement and increasing age 15. In our study, there was no significant correlation between age and prognosis improvement.
In our study, the most common complication after surgery was constipation. Other studies also reported constipation as the major postoperative complication in patients who underwent PSARP 16,17. The incidence of constipation has been reported to be from 10 to 73% in patients who underwent PSARP 16,18. In the study of Rintala et al. 9, constipation was present in 42% of the patients.
In our study, 31.7% of the patients had fecal incontinence. Elhalaby 19 reported that incontinence was present in 33.3% of their 38 patients. In the study of Elhalaby, 18 out of 38 patients were more than 3 years old. In our study, all patients were more than 3 years old. Improvement in constipation in patients with increasing age was reported by Rintala and Linadhl 20. Hence, constipation is expected to resolve in our patients when they reach adolescence. In the study by Ibrahim 21, of 23 neonates whose follow-up periods were longer than 3 years, 21 neonates had a good score using the Kiesewetter score 4.
Constipation is higher in our study than in other studies. The number of patients with normal sphincteric function is lower than in other studies. There was no significant difference between boys and girls. There was no significant difference between low-type and high-type ARM. The mean of scores was significantly higher among patients with fistula than among patients without fistula. Careful follow-up and parent education are also recommended to achieve a better outcome.
The source of data used in this paper was the general surgery residency thesis of Dr Seyed-Masood Mousavi; Thesis No: D-218 financial support was provided by research affairs of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
1. Grosfeld JLHolschneider AM.ARM – a historical overview.Anorectal malformation in children. Up-to-date, 20062006.New York:Springer;3–15.
2. Kelly JH.The clinical and radiological assessment of anal continence in childhood.Aust N Z J Surg1972;42:62–63.
3. Templeton JM Jr, Ditesheim JA.High imperforate anus – quantitative results of long-term fecal continence.J Pediatr Surg1985;20:645–652.
4. Kiesewetter WB, Chang JHT.Imperforate anus: a five to thirty year follow up perspective.Prog Pediatr Surg1977;10:111–120.
5. Holschneider AM.Treatment and functional results of anorectal continence in children with imperforate anus.Acta Chir Belg1983;83:191–204.
6. Rintala RJ, Lindahl H.Is normal bowel function possible after repair of intermediate and high anorectal malformations?J Pediatr Surg1995;30:491–494.
7. Davies MC, Creighton SM, Wilcox DT.Long-term outcomes of anorectal malformations.Pediatr Surg Int2004;20:567–572.
8. Levitt MA, Pena A.Outcomes from the correction of anorectal malformations.Curr Opin Pediatr2005;17:394–401.
9. Rintala RJ, Lindahl HG, Rasanen M.Do children with repaired low anorectal malformations have normal bowel function?J Pediatr Surg1997;32:823–826.
10. De Vos C, Arnold M, Sidler D, Moore SW.A comparison of laparoscopic-assisted (LAARP) and posterior sagittal (PSARP) anorectoplasty in the outcome of intermediate and high anorectal malformations.S Afr J Surg2011;49:39–43.
11. Mirza B, Ijaz L, Saleem M, Sharif M, Sheikh A.Anorectal malformations in neonates.Afr J Paediatr Surg2011;8:151–154.
12. Goyal A, Williams JM, Kenny SE, Lwin R, Baille CT, Lamont GL, Turock RR.Functional outcome and quality of life in anorectal malformations.J Pediatr Surg2006;41:318–322.
13. Hassett S, Snell S, Hughes-Thomas A.10-year outcome of children born with anorectal malformation, treated by posterior sagittal anorectoplasty, assessed according to the Krickenbeck classification.J Pediatr Surg2009;44:399–403.
14. Kaselas C, Philippopoulos A, Petropoulos A.Evaluation of long-term functional outcomes after surgical treatment of anorectal malformations.Int J Colorectal Dis2011;26:351–356.
15. Hassink EA, Rieu PN, Brugman NK, Festen C.Quality of life after operatively corrected high anorectal malformation: a long-term follow-up study of patients aged 18 years and older.J Pediatr Surg1994;29:773–6.
16. Rintala R, Lindahl H, Marttinen E, Sariola H.Constipation is a major functional complication after internal sphincter-saving posterior sagittal anorectoplasty for high and intermediate anorectal malformations.J Pediatr Surg1993;28:1054–1058.
17. Pena A.Anorectal malformations.Semin Pediatr Surg1995;4:35–47.
18. Langemeijer RA, Molenaar JC.Continence after posterior sagittal anorectoplasty.J Pediatr Surg1991;26:587–590.
19. Elhalaby EA.Primary repair of high and intermediate anorectal malformations in the neonates.Ann Pediatr Surg2006;2:117–122.
20. Rintala RJ, Linadhl HG.Fecal continence in patients having undergone posterior sagittal anorectoplasty procedure for high anorectal malformation improves at adolescence, as constipation disappears.J Pediatr Surg2001;36:1218–1221.
© 2014 Annals of Pediatric Surgery
21. Ibrahim IA.Fistulectomy and anoplasty for low imperforate anus with anoperitoneal fistula in boys.Ann Pediatr Surg2011;7:19–22.