Alejandra Vilanova-Sanchez

Imaging in anorectal and cloacal malformations

Dear Editors, We found the recent article “European Society of Paediatric Radiology abdominal imaging task force recommendations in paediatric uroradiology, part IX: imaging in anorectal and cloacal malformation, imaging in childhood ovarian torsion, and efforts in standardising paediatric uroradiology terminology” by Riccabona et al. [1] interesting and valuable. We believe that a multidisciplinary approach is fundamental when treating cloacal and anorectal malformations (ARMs), which ideally includes pediatric radiology, as well as pediatric surgery, urology, gynecology and gastroenterology/motility. Some suggestions follow:

Surgical management of functional constipation: An intermediate report of a new approach using a laparoscopic sigmoid resection combined with malone appendicostomy

INTRODUCTIONnWe previously reported our surgical technique for functional constipation for patients who have failed medical management using a novel collaborative approach with gastroenterology input, pre-operative contrast enema, colonic manometry, and laxative protocol combined with a laparoscopic colonic resection with Malone appendicostomy. Now we report our intermediate outcomes.nnnMETHODSnPatients who failed bowel management program for functional constipation were reviewed from 3/2014-2/2017. Patients with Hirschsprung disease, anorectal malformation, tethered cord, spina bifida, Trisomy 21, cerebral palsy, mitochondrial disease, or prior colon resection were excluded.nnnRESULTSnOf 31 patients (14 females; median age 12years, follow-up 10.3months) with functional constipation and failed medical management, 26 (84%) had preoperative colonic manometry which, in addition to the contrast enema, guided laparoscopic colon resection. Ten patients (32.3%) are clean with no flushes (1 takes no laxatives, 8 are on low dose laxatives only, and 1 patient was clean on laxatives but chose to switch back to flushes). Of the 21 patients that remain on antegrade flushes, 20 (95.2%) are clean, and one patient (4.8%) continues to soil. We define clean as no soiling and no abnormal stool burden on x-ray. Laxative trials are planned for all patients on an antegrade flush regimen.nnnCONCLUSIONnOur intermediate results show that laparoscopic colon resection with Malone appendicostomy allows the majority of patients to be clean on antegrade flushes, and some to be on no or minimal laxatives.nnnTYPE OF STUDYnRetrospective review.nnnLEVEL OF EVIDENCEn3.

Are Senna based laxatives safe when used as long term treatment for constipation in children

BACKGROUND AND AIMnSenna is a stimulant laxative commonly used by pediatricians, pediatric gastroenterologists, and pediatric surgeons. Many clinicians avoid Senna for reasons such as tolerance or side effects but this has little scientific justification. We recently found several patients we were caring for developed perineal blistering during the course of Senna treatment. Because of this we chose to review the literature to identify side effects in children taking this medication as well as to analyze our Centers experience with Sennas secondary effects.nnnMETHODSnWe performed a literature review (MEDLINE, PUBMED) using the keywords of Senna, sen, sennosides and children, and pediatric and functional (idiopathic) constipation. We looked for articles with information regarding perineal blisters related to Senna as well as other secondary effects of Senna laxatives in children when used on a long-term basis. We also reviewed the charts of our patients who had previously taken Senna or are currently taking Senna, looking for adverse reactions.nnnRESULTSnEight articles in the literature reported perineal blisters after administration of Senna laxatives in 28 patients. Of those occurrences, 18 patients (64%) had accidental administration of Senna and 10 (36%) had Senna prescribed as a long term treatment. All of the blistering episodes were related to high dose, night-time accidents, or intense diarrhea with a long period of stool to skin contact. At our institution, from 2014 to 2017, we prescribed Senna and have recorded data to 640 patients. During the study period, 17 patients (2.2%) developed blisters during their treatment. Patients who developed blisters had higher doses 60mg/day; 60 [12-100] vs. 17.5 [1.7-150] (p<0.001). All of the blistering episodes were related to night-time accidents, with a long period of stool to skin contact. 83 (13%) patients presented minor side effects such as abdominal cramping, vomiting or diarrhea which resolved once the type of laxatives were changed or enemas were started. The doses of Senna was not significantly different in these patients 15mg/day [4.4-150] vs. 17.5mg/day [1.5-150]. There were no other long-term side effects from Senna found in the pediatric literature for long-term treatment besides abdominal cramping or diarrhea during the first weeks of administration. We found no evidence of tolerance to Senna in our review.nnnCONCLUSIONnThere is a paucity of information in the literature regarding side effects of sennosides as a long-term therapy, and to our knowledge, this is the first review of Senna side effects in children. Senna induced dermatitis is rare, but may occur when patients need a higher dose. All of the cases described had a long period of exposure of the skin to stool. Besides the perineal rash with blisters, we could find no other described major side effect with Senna administration in the pediatric population or evidence of the frequently mentioned concern of the development of tolerance to Senna. Pediatric caregivers should advise families of the rare side effect of skin blistering and educate them to change the diaper frequently in children who are not toilet- trained to reduce stool to skin exposure. We can conclude from this review that Senna is a safe treatment option for constipation in children.nnnLEVEL OF EVIDENCEnIV.

Does clinic visit education within a multidisciplinary center improve health literacy scores in caregivers of children with complex colorectal conditions

INTRODUCTIONnHealth literacy is low in an estimated one-third of the US population. Little is known about the health literacy of caregivers of children with colorectal conditions. The objective of this study was to investigate whether a timed health literacy intervention could improve health literacy in this population.nnnMETHODSnWe used the BRIEF Health Literacy screening (BHLS) tool on caregivers of children who came to our colorectal clinic. Health literacy was categorized as inadequate, marginal, or adequate. The number of caregivers with adequate health literacy was compared to the number of clinic visits and socioeconomic status.nnnRESULTSnWe included 233 caregivers. The average number of clinic visits was 3.5 over 1.2years. At the first clinic visit, 70% (n=98) of caregivers had adequate health literacy. Scores improved to 88% (p=0.024) after the fourth visit. Socioeconomic factors were not associated with health literacy. Patients of caregivers with adequate health literacy visited our clinic 3.8 times, compared to 2.7 times for those with lower literacy (p=0.006).nnnCONCLUSIONnEmphasis on providing an education-based approach at each visit increased health literacy significantly. As expected, health literacy was lowest during the first visit, which we believe is the optimal time to implement educational interventions.nnnTYPE OF STUDYnCase Control/Retrospective Comparative Study.nnnLEVEL OF EVIDENCEnLevel III.

Obstetrical outcomes in adult patients born with complex anorectal malformations and cloacal anomalies: a literature review

Patients born with complex anorectal malformations often have associated Müllerian anomalies, which might affect fertility and obstetrical outcomes. Other vertebral-anorectal-tracheoesophageal-renal-limbxa0associations, such as renal or cardiac anomalies, could also affect pregnancy intention, fertility rates, and recommendations about mode of delivery or obstetrical outcomes. Associated conditions present at birth, like hydrocolpos, could also potentially affect fertility. Depending on the complexity of the anomaly, primary reconstruction might include vaginoplasty, vaginal interposition, perineal body reconstruction, and extensive pelvic dissection. After the initial reconstruction, patients might have multiple additional surgeries for stoma reversal, bladder augmentation, and creation of conduits, all with potential for pelvic adhesions. Pregnancy intention, fertility rates, mode of delivery, and obstetrical outcomes data are limited in this patient population, making it challenging to counsel patients and their families. We sought to evaluate all available literature in an attempt to better counsel families. A PubMed literature search was undertaken to review this topic. Search terms of cloaca, anorectal malformation, pregnancy, cloacal exstrophy, vaginal delivery, and cesarean section were used and citation lists from all identified articles were checked to ensure that all possible articles were included in the review. We also outline comorbidities from the fetal period to adulthood that might affect reproductive health. Of the articles on anorectal and cloacal anomalies, 13 reports were identified that covered obstetrical outcomes. They were in patients with previous anorectal malformation, cloaca, and cloacal exstrophy repair. Twenty-four pregnancies were reported in 16 patients. Two ectopic pregnancies, 5 spontaneous miscarriages, 1 triplet pregnancy, and 16 singleton pregnancies were reported with a total of 19 live births. Regarding the method of conception, 15/18 pregnancies occurred spontaneously and 3/18 were via assisted reproductive technology with inxa0vitro fertilization. There were 19 live births, of which at least 8 were preterm. Müllerian anatomy was reported in 8 of 13 articles. Only 2 patients underwent vaginal delivery (1 patient with repaired cloaca malformation had an operative vaginal delivery and 1 patient with repaired imperforate anus with rectovaginal fistula had a normal spontaneous vaginal delivery). The remaining patients all underwent a cesarean section. There were no reported cases of maternal mortality, and maternal morbidity was limited to recurrent urinary tract infections and worsening chronic kidney disease. There is a paucity of information regarding obstetrical outcomes in adult anorectal and cloaca patients. However, patients with previous cloacal repairs have achieved pregnancy spontaneously, as well as with inxa0vitro fertilization. Patients with repaired cloacal malformations are at increased risk of preterm birth and cesarean delivery. Most patients with cloacal anomalies have an associated Müllerian anomaly and therefore have an increased risk of preterm labor. From our review we conclude that contraception should be offered to patients not desiring pregnancy, and cesarean section is likely the preferred mode of delivery. On the basis of this review, we recommend proactive data collection of all such patients to document outcomes and collaboration among providers and between centers devoted to this complex patient population.

A descriptive model for a multidisciplinary unit for colorectal and pelvic malformations

INTRODUCTIONnPatients with anorectal malformations (ARM), Hirschsprung disease (HD), and colonic motility disorders often require care from specialists across a variety of fields, including colorectal surgery, urology, gynecology, and GI motility. We sought to describe the process of creating a collaborative process for the care of these complex patients.nnnMETHODSnWe developed a model of a devoted center for these conditions that includes physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and advanced practice nurses. Our weekly planning strategy includes a meeting with representatives of all specialties to review all patients prior to evaluation in our multidisciplinary clinic, followed by combined exams under anesthesia or surgical intervention as needed.nnnRESULTSnThere are 31 people working directly in the Center at present. From the Centers start in 2014 until 2017, 1258 patients were cared for from all 50 United States and 62 countries. 360 patients had an ARM (110 had a cloacal malformation, 11 had cloacal exstrophy), 223 presented with HD, 71 had a spinal malformation or injury causing neurogenic bowel, 321 had severe functional constipation or colonic dysmotility, and 162 had other diagnoses including familial polyposis, Crohns disease, or ulcerative colitis. We have had 170 multidisciplinary meetings, 170 multispecialty outpatient, and 52 nurse practitioner clinics. In our bowel management program we have seen a total of 514 patients in 36 sessions.nnnCONCLUSIONnThis is the first report describing the design of a multidisciplinary team approach for patients with colorectal and complex pelvic malformations. We found that approaching these patients in a collaborative way allows for combined medical and surgical decisions with many providers simultaneously, facilitates therapy, and can potentially improve patient outcomes. We hope that this model will help establish new-devoted centers in other locations to encourage centralized care for these rare malformations.nnnLEVEL OF EVIDENCEnIV.

The Mullerian Black Box: Predicting and defining Mullerian anatomy in patients with cloacal abnormalities and the need for longitudinal assessment

INTRODUCTIONnMost patients with a cloacal malformation have a Mullerian anomaly. We sought to examine our patients with a cloacal malformation to determine the proportion of them we felt we knew their Mullerian anatomy and which proportion we felt would most benefit from longitudinal assessment to define their anatomy, reproductive potential, and risk of outflow tract obstruction after puberty. We also compared the preoperative assessment of reproductive anatomy (pelvic ultrasound, MRI, cloacagram, and vaginoscopy) and intra-operative abdominal findings (at the time of primary cloacal reconstruction or subsequent abdominal procedures) to see how these correlated with and which preoperative assessment tool was most predictive of intraoperative anatomy. We also sought to confirm what we expected to be a lack of ovarian pathology.nnnMETHODSnA single site retrospective chart review was performed on all patients with a cloacal anomaly seen between May 2014 and September 2017. Preoperative assessment (pelvic ultrasound, MRI, cloaca gram, and vaginoscopy) and operative reports (both primary reconstruction and later abdominal procedures) were reviewed to ascertain Mullerian and ovarian anatomy.nnnRESULTSn30 of 36 (83%) of patients had defined Mullerian anatomy after preoperative assessment (pelvic ultrasound, MRI, cloacagram, and vaginoscopy) with or without the addition intraoperative assessment of Mullerian structures obtained during laparoscopy or laparotomy. 19/30 (63%) had duplication of their Mullerian structures. 25/36 (69%) had intraoperative assessment of Mullerian anatomy during laparoscopy or laparotomy. In this group, preoperative assessment with pelvic ultrasound correlated in 4/8 patients (50%), MRI correlated in 3/4 patients (75%), cloacagram in 10/15 patients (67%), and vaginoscopy in 23/25 patients (92%). 14/36 (39%) patients were found to require longitudinal assessment to define anatomy, reproductive potential or risk of outflow tract obstruction after puberty. Patients with ovarian findings described at the time of laparoscopy or laparotomy had no evidence of ovarian pathology.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe majority of patients with cloaca in our series (83%) had their Mullerian anatomy defined by either preoperative assessment and/or findings at the time of laparoscopy or laparotomy. Duplication of the vagina and uterus was the most commonly described Mullerian anatomy (63%) in our series. Vaginoscopy appears to be superior to pelvic ultrasound, MRI, and cloacagram in predicting Mullerian anatomy. Fourteen of our 36 (39%) patients will require longitudinal assessment follow for reproductive potential and/or risk of outflow tract obstruction after puberty as their Mullerian anatomy is not known. There was no evidence of ovarian pathology in any cloaca patient. While we felt as though we could define Mullerian anatomy in most of our patients, any opportunity for intraoperative assessment of Mullerian anatomy should be utilized and therefore teams who are involved in the management of these patients must have a systematic and collaborative method established to ensure that Mullerian structures are thoroughly evaluated intra-operatively and documented in a standardized fashion.nnnTYPE OF STUDYnRetrospective Chart review.nnnLEVEL OF EVIDENCEnIII.

A structured bowel management program for patients with severe functional constipation can help decrease emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and healthcare costs

BACKGROUNDnPublished health-care costs related to constipation in children in the USA are estimated at

A comparison of Malone appendicostomy and cecostomy for antegrade access as adjuncts to a bowel management program for patients with functional constipation or fecal incontinence

3.9 billion/year. We sought to assess the effect of a bowel management program (BMP) on health-care utilization and costs.nnnMETHODSnAt two collaborating centers, BMP involves an outpatient week during which a treatment plan is implemented and objective assessment of stool burden is performed with daily radiography. We reviewed all patients with severe functional constipation who participated in the program from March 2011 to June 2015 in center 1 and from April 2014 to April 2016 in center 2. ED visits, hospital admissions, and constipation-related morbidities (abdominal pain, fecal impaction, urinary retention, urinary tract infections) 12u202fmonths before and 12u202fmonths after completion of the BMP were recorded.nnnRESULTSnOne hundred eighty-four patients were included (center 1u202f=u202f96, center 2u202f=u202f88). Sixty-three (34.2%) patients had at least one unplanned visit to the ED before treatment. ED visits decreased to 23 (12.5%) or by 64% (pu202f<u202f0.0005). Unplanned hospital admissions decreased from 65 to 28, i.e., a 56.9% reduction (pu202f<u202f0.0005).nnnCONCLUSIONnIn children with severe functional constipation, a structured BMP decreases unplanned visits to the ED, hospital admissions, and costs for constipation-related health care.nnnLEVEL OF EVIDENCEn3.

Can sacral development as a marker for caudal regression help identify associated urologic anomalies in patients with anorectal malformation

BACKGROUNDnAppendicostomy and cecostomy are two approaches for antegrade enema access for children with severe constipation or fecal incontinence as adjuncts to a mechanical bowel management program. Each technique is associated with a unique set of complications. The purpose of our study was to report the rates of various complications associated with antegrade enema access techniques to help guide which option a clinician offers to their patients.nnnMETHODSnWe reviewed all patients in our Center who received an appendicostomy or cecostomy from 2014 to 2017 who were participants in our bowel management program.nnnRESULTSn204 patients underwent an antegrade access procedure (150 appendicostomies and 54 cecostomies). Skin-level leakage (3% vs. 22%) and wound infections (7% vs. 28%) occurred less frequently in patients with appendicostomy compared to cecostomy. Nineteen (13%) appendicostomies required revision for stenosis, 4 (3%) for mucosal prolapse, and 1 (1%) for leakage. The rates of stenosis (33 vs. 12%) and wound infection (13 vs. 6%) were higher in patients who received a neoappendicostomy compared to an in situ appendicostomy. Intervention was needed in 19 (35%) cecostomy patients, 15 (28%) for an inability to flush or a dislodged tube, and 5 for major complications including intraperitoneal spillage in 4 (7%) and 1 (2%) for a tube misplaced in the ileum, all occurring in patients with a percutaneously placed cecostomy. One appendicostomy (1%) patient required laparoscopic revision after the appendicostomy detached from the skin.nnnCONCLUSIONnPatients had a lower rate of minor and major complications after appendicostomy compared to cecostomy. The unique complication profile of each technique should be considered for patients needing these procedures as an adjunct to their care for constipation or fecal incontinence.nnnTYPE OF STUDYnRetrospective comparative study.nnnLEVEL OF EVIDENCEnLevel III.