Volume 15, Issue 10 pp. 1309-1312
Original Article

Phantom rectum following abdominoperineal excision for rectal neoplasm: appearance and disappearance

C. Reategui

C. Reategui

Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
F. F. Chiang

F. F. Chiang

Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
L. Rosen

L. Rosen

Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
D. Sands

D. Sands

Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
E. G. Weiss

E. G. Weiss

Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
S. D. Wexner

Corresponding Author

S. D. Wexner

Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, USA

Correspondence to: Steven D. Wexner, MD, Department of Colorectal Surgery, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd, Weston, Florida 33331, USA.

E-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 10 June 2013
Citations: 3
Presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 20–23 June 2011.

Abstract

Aim

The sensation that the rectum remains or is functioning after abdominoperineal excision (APE) is called phantom rectum (PR). Its postoperative and long-term morbidity are not well documented. Informed consent may not include the risk and consequences of this condition. We assessed the incidence and morbidity of PR after APE and compared those with vs those without vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps.

Method

Patients who underwent APE between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2008 were identified. Preoperative radiation and operative reconstruction by vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flaps were noted. Patients were interviewed by telephone to assess the presence and timing of PR symptoms and their effect on quality of life.

Results

Thirty-six of 80 patients who underwent APE were available for follow-up. Twenty-three (64%) described PR symptoms including urgency to evacuate [22 (61%)], sensation of faeces in the rectum [19 (52%)] and sensation of passing flatus [17 (48%)]. Eleven (47%) who had VRAM vs 25 who did not, reported having symptoms of PR at < 3 months after APE. Patients described their symptoms as ‘unchanged over time’ [20 (56%)], ‘gradually decreasing and ultimately disappearing’ [13 (35%)] or ‘worsening’ [3 (9%)]. Preoperative radiation and laparoscopic approach were not associated with PR symptoms. Significantly more patients having a VRAM flap reported early PR symptoms [7/11 (64%) vs 4/25 (16%)] (= 0.008).

Conclusion

PR sensations were experienced by 23 (64%) patients who underwent APE for rectal cancer. VRAM reconstruction was associated with early PR presentation. The possibility of PR should be discussed preoperatively in patients undergoing APE for anorectal neoplasm.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.