National Medical Research Center for Children’s Health

Abstract Introduction. Anorectal malformations are one of the most numerous groups of proctologic pathology in children. The incidence is 1 per 5,000 live births. Perineal ultrasound, distal colostography, and MRI of the pelvic organs and sacrococcygeal region are used to clarify the anatomico-topographic features of the malformation and identify concomitant malformations (presacral masses, distal spinal cord pathology). This article presents a clinical case of surgical treatment of an 11-year-old girl who underwent primary surgery for anorectal malformation with rectovestibular fistula in infancy. In the postoperative period for 10 years, the parents practically did not carry out rehabilitation therapy. These factors led to persistent decompensation of the lower intestine in the form of a giant megarectum, which required repeated anorectoplasty with resection of pathologically dilated parts of the intestinal tube. The article presents description of the repeated surgery with intraoperative electromyoidentification of the perineal muscles, data of follow-up 9 months after the repeated anorectoplasty with instrumental diagnostic methods (irrigography, functional study of the closing apparatus of the rectum).

Discussion. This clinical observation illustrates complications following surgical treatment of anorectal malformation with rectovestibular fistula. Lack of intraoperative electromyoidentification of the muscles during primary anorectoplasty often resulted in ectopia of the neoanus relative to the center of the perineal muscle center. This circumstance was one of the causes of persistent chronic constipation in the postoperative period.

Conclusion. The use of electromyostimulation during primary proctoplasty for reliable determination of the sphincter-levator complex topography is mandatory. Long sequential rehabilitation in the postoperative period including neoanus bougienage, provision of regular full defecation, physiotherapeutic treatment, as well as regular follow-up examination in the in-patient department is also an integral part of the treatment.

1. Levitt M.A., Peña A. Anorectal malformations. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2007;2:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-2-33.

2. Peña A., Levitt M.A. Chapter 101. Anorectal Malformations. In: Grosfeld J.L., O’Neill J.A. Jr., Coran A.G., Fonkalsrud E.W., Caldamone A.A. (eds.). Pediatric Surgery. 6th ed. Elsevier; 2006, pp. 1566–1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0323-02842-4.50104-2.

3. Thomeer M.G., Devos A., Lequin М., De Graaf N., Meeussen C.J.H.M., Meradji M. et al. High resolution MRI for preoperative work-up of neonates with an anorectal malformation: a direct comparison with distal pressure colostography/fistulography. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(12):3472–3479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3786-0.

4. Leniushkin A.I., Komissarov I.A. Pediatric coloproctology. St Petersburg: St Petersburg State Pediatric Medical Academy; 2008. 448 р. (In Russ.) Availble at: https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01001568291.

5. Georgeson K.E., Inge T.H., Albanese C.T. Laparoscopically assisted anorectal pull-through for highimperforate anus – a new technique. J Pediatr Surg. 2000;35(6):927–930. https://doi.org/10.1053/jpsu.2000.6925.