Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2/2020

01-02-2020 | Enterostomy | Original Article

The Water-Holding Procedure for Ensuring Postoperative Continence Prior Restoring Intestinal Continuity

Authors: Frank Schwandner, Ulrich Klimars, Michael Gock, Leif Schiffmann, Maria Witte, Tobias Schiergens, Markus Rentsch, Ernst Klar, Florian Kühn

Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery | Issue 2/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A defunctioning stoma can become necessary in a relevant number of patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. As a matter of course, patients seek an early closure of the stoma. However, preoperative management of these patients varies and the prediction of continence after stoma removal can become challenging. Patients might be fully continent despite low manometric pressures and vice versa. An easy and reliable way to predict continence after stoma reversal would improve patients’ management and outcome. Although frequently performed in various surgical centers in Germany, there is no published data on the water-holding test. Hence, this is the first study evaluating the role of the test in clinical practice.

Method

We performed a prospective pilot study to evaluate the role of anorectal manometry and the water-holding procedure as a predictor of postoperative continence prior to stoma reversal. Inclusion criteria were a successfully passed water-holding test, any type of fecal diversion and the possibility of restoring intestinal continuity. Preoperative low manometric pressure levels were not an exclusion criteria for stoma reversal. Fifty-two patients with ostomy were consecutively enrolled in this study between October 2013 and February 2016. Anorectal manometry was performed in all patients prior to stoma reversal. After stoma removal, patients were followed-up for 6 months. Postoperative incontinence was determined using the Wexner incontinence score.

Results

A total of 52 patients (38 males, 14 females) were included at an average age of 59 (range 33–83) years. Most frequent indications for intestinal diversion were rectal cancer surgery, IBD-related surgery, or surgery for diverticular disease. Low anterior rectal resection was performed in 17 patients (32.7%), followed by a proctocolectomy in 9 (17.3%), colectomy in 9 (17.3%), and recto-sigmoid resection in 7 patients (13.5%). Median time from stoma creation to reversal was 206 days (range 48–871 days). All patients had successfully passed the standardized water-holding test. At the same time, the majority of patients had low preoperative manometric pressure values and would normally not have been reversed at that point. The median postoperative Wexner incontinence score was at 1.5 (range 0–20), 0.5 (range 0–14), and 0 (range 0–11) at 14, 60, and 180 days after stoma reversal. Low preoperative manometric squeeze and/or resting pressure levels were not associated with a higher postoperative incontinence score at 14, 60, or 180 days after stoma reversal.

Conclusion

A standardized water-holding test can function as an easy and reliable method before stoma reversal to predict sufficient postoperative fecal continence. In case of a sufficient water-holding test despite low manometric pressure levels, the risk for postoperative anal incontinence seems to be low. Preoperative manometric pressure levels do not appear to predict postoperative continence.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Den Dulk M, Smit M, Peeters KCMJ, Kranenbarg EM-K, Rutten HJT, Wiggers T Putter H, van de Velde CJ; Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. A multivariate analysis of limiting factors for stoma reversal in patients with rectal cancer entered into the total mesorectal excision (TME) trial: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 297–303.CrossRef Den Dulk M, Smit M, Peeters KCMJ, Kranenbarg EM-K, Rutten HJT, Wiggers T Putter H, van de Velde CJ; Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. A multivariate analysis of limiting factors for stoma reversal in patients with rectal cancer entered into the total mesorectal excision (TME) trial: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 297–303.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Gessler B, Haglind E, Angenete E. Loop ileostomies in colorectal cancer patients - morbidity and risk factors for nonreversal. J Surg Res 2012; 178: 708–714.CrossRef Gessler B, Haglind E, Angenete E. Loop ileostomies in colorectal cancer patients - morbidity and risk factors for nonreversal. J Surg Res 2012; 178: 708–714.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Bakx R, Busch ORC, Bemelman WA, Veldink GJ, Slors JFM, van Lanschot JJB. Morbidity of temporary loop ileostomies. Dig Surg 2004; 21: 277–281.CrossRef Bakx R, Busch ORC, Bemelman WA, Veldink GJ, Slors JFM, van Lanschot JJB. Morbidity of temporary loop ileostomies. Dig Surg 2004; 21: 277–281.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Schiergens TS, Hoffmann V, Schobel TN, Englert GH, Kreis ME, Thasler WE, Werner J, Kasparek MS. Long-term Quality of Life of Patients With Permanent End Ileostomy: Results of a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey. Dis Colon Rectum 2017; 60: 51–60.CrossRef Schiergens TS, Hoffmann V, Schobel TN, Englert GH, Kreis ME, Thasler WE, Werner J, Kasparek MS. Long-term Quality of Life of Patients With Permanent End Ileostomy: Results of a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey. Dis Colon Rectum 2017; 60: 51–60.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Tsunoda A, Tsunoda Y, Narita K, Watanabe M, Nakao K, Kusano M (2008) Quality of life after low anterior resection and temporary loop ileostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 51: 218–222.CrossRef Tsunoda A, Tsunoda Y, Narita K, Watanabe M, Nakao K, Kusano M (2008) Quality of life after low anterior resection and temporary loop ileostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 51: 218–222.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference O’Leary DP, Fide CJ, Foy C, Lucarotti ME. Quality of life after low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision and temporary loop ileostomy for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1216–1220.CrossRef O’Leary DP, Fide CJ, Foy C, Lucarotti ME. Quality of life after low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision and temporary loop ileostomy for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1216–1220.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Pehl C, Enck P, Franke A, Frieling T, Heitland W, Herold A, Hinninghofen H, Karaus M, Keller J, Krammer HJ, Kreis M, Kuhlbusch-Zicklam R, Mönnikes H, Münnich U, Schiedeck T, Schmidtmann M; German Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility; Commission Proctology of the German Society for Digestive and Metabolic Diseases; German Society for Coloproctology; Surgical Working Group Coloproctology of the German Society for Visceral Surgery on Anorectal Manometry in Adults. [Anorectal manometry]. Z Gastroenterol 2007; 45: 397–417.CrossRef Pehl C, Enck P, Franke A, Frieling T, Heitland W, Herold A, Hinninghofen H, Karaus M, Keller J, Krammer HJ, Kreis M, Kuhlbusch-Zicklam R, Mönnikes H, Münnich U, Schiedeck T, Schmidtmann M; German Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility; Commission Proctology of the German Society for Digestive and Metabolic Diseases; German Society for Coloproctology; Surgical Working Group Coloproctology of the German Society for Visceral Surgery on Anorectal Manometry in Adults. [Anorectal manometry]. Z Gastroenterol 2007; 45: 397–417.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Jorge JM, Wexner SD: Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993; 36: 77–97.CrossRef Jorge JM, Wexner SD: Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993; 36: 77–97.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Sier MF, van Gelder L, Ubbink DT, Bemelman WA, Oostenbroek RJ. Factors affecting timing of closure and non-reversal of temporary ileostomies. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015; 30: 1185–92.CrossRef Sier MF, van Gelder L, Ubbink DT, Bemelman WA, Oostenbroek RJ. Factors affecting timing of closure and non-reversal of temporary ileostomies. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015; 30: 1185–92.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Witte M, Schwandner F, Klar E. Before and after Anorectal Surgery: Which Information Is Needed from the Functional Laboratory? Visc Med 2018; 34: 128–133.CrossRef Witte M, Schwandner F, Klar E. Before and after Anorectal Surgery: Which Information Is Needed from the Functional Laboratory? Visc Med 2018; 34: 128–133.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Carrington EV, Scott SM, Bharucha A, Mion F, Remes-Troche JM, Malcolm A, Heinrich H, Fox M, Rao SS; International Anorectal Physiology Working Group and the International Working Group for Disorders of Gastrointestinal Motility and Function. Expert consensus document: Advances in the evaluation of anorectal function. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 15: 309–323.CrossRef Carrington EV, Scott SM, Bharucha A, Mion F, Remes-Troche JM, Malcolm A, Heinrich H, Fox M, Rao SS; International Anorectal Physiology Working Group and the International Working Group for Disorders of Gastrointestinal Motility and Function. Expert consensus document: Advances in the evaluation of anorectal function. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 15: 309–323.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Rao SS. Pathophysiology of adult fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: S14–22.CrossRef Rao SS. Pathophysiology of adult fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: S14–22.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Diamant NE, Kamm MA, Wald A, Whitehead WE. AGA technical review on anorectal testing techniques. Gastroenterology 1999; 116: 735–760.CrossRef Diamant NE, Kamm MA, Wald A, Whitehead WE. AGA technical review on anorectal testing techniques. Gastroenterology 1999; 116: 735–760.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Alavi K, Chan S, Wise P, Kaiser AM, Sudan R, Bordeianou L. Fecal Incontinence: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Management. J Gastrointest Surg 2015; 19: 1910–21.CrossRef Alavi K, Chan S, Wise P, Kaiser AM, Sudan R, Bordeianou L. Fecal Incontinence: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Management. J Gastrointest Surg 2015; 19: 1910–21.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Rao S S, Hatfield R, Soffer E, Rao S, Beaty J, Conklin J L. Manometric tests of anorectal function in healthy adults. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999; 94: 773–783.CrossRef Rao S S, Hatfield R, Soffer E, Rao S, Beaty J, Conklin J L. Manometric tests of anorectal function in healthy adults. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999; 94: 773–783.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Read NW, Harford WV, Schmulen AC, Read MG, Santa Ana C, Fordtran JS. A clinical study of patients with fecal incontinence and diarrhea. Gastroenterology 1979; 76: 747–756.CrossRef Read NW, Harford WV, Schmulen AC, Read MG, Santa Ana C, Fordtran JS. A clinical study of patients with fecal incontinence and diarrhea. Gastroenterology 1979; 76: 747–756.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Matheson DM, Keighley MR. Manometric evaluation of rectal prolapse and faecal incontinence. Gut 1981; 22: 126–129.CrossRef Matheson DM, Keighley MR. Manometric evaluation of rectal prolapse and faecal incontinence. Gut 1981; 22: 126–129.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Lee SJ, Park YS: Serial evaluation of anorectal function following low anterior resection of the rectum. Int J Colorectal Dis 1998; 13: 241–246.CrossRef Lee SJ, Park YS: Serial evaluation of anorectal function following low anterior resection of the rectum. Int J Colorectal Dis 1998; 13: 241–246.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Van Duijvendijk P: Prospective evaluation of anorectal function after total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma with or without preoperative radiotherapy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 2282–2289.CrossRef Van Duijvendijk P: Prospective evaluation of anorectal function after total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma with or without preoperative radiotherapy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 2282–2289.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Roberts PL, Coller JA, Schoetz DJ, Veidenheimer MC. Manometric assessment of patients with obstetric injuries and fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1990; 33: 16–20.CrossRef Roberts PL, Coller JA, Schoetz DJ, Veidenheimer MC. Manometric assessment of patients with obstetric injuries and fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1990; 33: 16–20.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Parés D, Duncan J, Dudding T, Phillips RK, Norton C. Investigation to predict faecal continence in patients undergoing reversal of a defunctioning stoma (Porridge enema test). Colorectal Dis. 2008; 10: 379–85.CrossRef Parés D, Duncan J, Dudding T, Phillips RK, Norton C. Investigation to predict faecal continence in patients undergoing reversal of a defunctioning stoma (Porridge enema test). Colorectal Dis. 2008; 10: 379–85.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Brand M, Oettle GJ. The dynamic continence challenge - a simple test to predict faecal continence prior to colostomy closure. S Afr J Surg 2012; 50: 125–6.CrossRef Brand M, Oettle GJ. The dynamic continence challenge - a simple test to predict faecal continence prior to colostomy closure. S Afr J Surg 2012; 50: 125–6.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Rao SS; American College of Gastroenterology Practice Parameters Committee. Diagnosis and management of fecal incontinence. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004; 99: 1585–604.CrossRef Rao SS; American College of Gastroenterology Practice Parameters Committee. Diagnosis and management of fecal incontinence. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004; 99: 1585–604.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Water-Holding Procedure for Ensuring Postoperative Continence Prior Restoring Intestinal Continuity
Authors
Frank Schwandner
Ulrich Klimars
Michael Gock
Leif Schiffmann
Maria Witte
Tobias Schiergens
Markus Rentsch
Ernst Klar
Florian Kühn
Publication date
01-02-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 1091-255X
Electronic ISSN: 1873-4626
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-019-04171-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2/2020 Go to the issue