Abnormalities in “low” anorectal malformations (ARMs) and functional results resecting the distal 3cm

The management of anorectal malformation with congenital vestibular fistula: a single-stage modified anterior sagittal anorectoplasty

“…The sigmoid distension led to mega-sigmoid and overflow incontinence [10]. Lombardi recommended the resection of a significant portion of distal aberrant anorectal canals (fistulas) to achieve better functional results [14]. We followed this practice in our group, only 4 patient (4/26, 15.4 %) had constipation.…”

Histopathologic and immunohistochemical findings in congenital anorectal malformations

“…Meier-Ruge and Holschneider [ 17 ] observed hypoganglionosis of the myenteric plexus proximal to the anal floor, also most commonly in intermediate ARMs, which is therefore strongly recommended to be excised for reconstruction. Lombardi et al [ 20 ] realized that the resection of distal rectum structural abnormalities maybe helpful to permit better functional results during radical treatment.…”

Transition Risk Assessment Score to Stratify Health Care Needs and Interventions in Adolescents with Anorectal Malformations: A Pilot Study

“…Twenty separate scoring systems related to ARM were identified and presented in ►Table 1. 2,6, Scoring systems were classified in three groups: colorectal (12), nephrourologic (2), and quality of life (6).…”

“…Among the most commonly used scoring systems included Holschneider score, 10,[19][20][21][22][23] Kelly score, 10,24,25 Japanese study group of anorectal anomalies (JSGA) score, 10,26 Templeton score, 27,28 and Krickenbeck classification for postoperative results (age > 3). 2,6,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Overall the Krickenbeck classification for postoperative results, proposed by the international conference for the development of standards for the treatment of ARMs in 2005, has been extensively used in the last decade. 2,6,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Though this has been implemented, there are no papers exploring the long-term predictive value of this single system postoperative score to validate its effectiveness at highlighting those at most risk.…”

“…2,6,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Overall the Krickenbeck classification for postoperative results, proposed by the international conference for the development of standards for the treatment of ARMs in 2005, has been extensively used in the last decade. 2,6,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Though this has been implemented, there are no papers exploring the long-term predictive value of this single system postoperative score to validate its effectiveness at highlighting those at most risk.…”