Skip to content

A Comparison of Quality of Life Between MAlone Procedure and Percutaneaous Endoscopic Caecostomy in Patients With Antegrade Colonic Enema

A Comparative Study Between Malone Procedure and Percutaneaous Endoscopic Caecostomy in Patients Treated With Antegrade Colonic Enema for Severe Anal Incontinence and/or Constipation

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05040139
Acronym
MAPEC
Enrollment
103
Registered
2021-09-10
Start date
2018-11-13
Completion date
2019-12-20
Last updated
2021-09-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Constipation Aggravated, Fecal Incontinence With Fecal Urgency

Keywords

Constipation, Fecal incontinence, Antegrade colonic enema, Percutaneous Endoscopic Caecostomy, Malone Procedure

Brief summary

Background: Antegrade colonic enema (ACE) is a second intent treatment of severe constipation and/or fecal incontinence following the failure of medical treatment. ACE is classically administered through a percutaneous access to the caecum performed surgically according to the Malone procedure (MP). Recently, a novel endoscopic approach named Percutaneous Endoscopic Caecostomy (PEC) has been proposed to perform the percutaneous access to the caecum. PEC has never been compared to the traditional MP in terms of postoperative quality of life and functional outcomes. Objective: The aim of the study is to compare postoperative quality of life between MP and PEC in patients treated with ACE for severe constipation and/or fecal incontinence. Hypothesis: MP and PEC achieve similar quality of life outcomes. Methods: All patients from two prospective databases who underwent MP or PEC for severe constipation and/or fecal incontinence between 2006 and 2016 will be included. They will be contacted to answer questionnaires about quality of life (GIQLI) and functional outcomes including constipation, fecal incontinence and body image assessment (KESS, Wexner and BIQ scores respectively). The main measured outcome will be GIQLI score. Results: The results of this comparative study will determine if the endoscopic and the surgical approaches are similar in terms of quality of life, or if one of them is better than the other. This study will clarify the optimal protocol to perform a caecal percutaneous access before ACE administration in patients suffering from severe constipation and/or fecal incontinence.

Detailed description

Background: Antegrade colonic enema (ACE) is a second intent treatment of severe constipation and/or fecal incontinence following the failure of medical treatment. ACE is classically administered through a percutaneous access to the caecum performed surgically according to the Malone procedure (MP). Recently, a novel endoscopic approach named Percutaneous Endoscopic Caecostomy (PEC) has been proposed to perform the percutaneous access to the caecum. PEC has never been compared to the traditional MP in terms of postoperative quality of life and functional outcomes. Objective: The aim of the study is to compare postoperative quality of life between MP and PEC in patients treated with ACE for severe constipation and/or fecal incontinence. Hypothesis: MP and PEC achieve similar quality of life outcomes. Study design: All patients from two prospective databases who underwent MP or PEC for severe constipation and/or fecal incontinence between 2006 and 2016 will be included. They will be contacted by mail to answer questionnaires about quality of life (GIQLI) and functional outcomes including constipation, fecal incontinence and body image assessment (KESS, Wexner and BIQ scores respectively). Patients who did not answer to the mail will be phoned. The collection of patients' answers will be conducted over a 3 months period. Main outcome measures: Quality of life evaluated by the GIQLI score. Secondary outcomes measures: Functional outcomes including constipation severity (measured by the KESS score), fecal incontinence severity (measured by the Wexner score), body image impairment (measured by the BIQ score). Results: The results of this comparative study will determine if the endoscopic and the surgical approaches are similar in terms of quality of life, or if one of them is better than the other. This study will clarify the optimal protocol to perform a caecal percutaneous access before ACE administration in patients suffering from severe constipation and/or fecal incontinence.

Interventions

PROCEDUREMalone Procedure

Surgical procedure performed to obtain a percutaneous caecal access for the administration of antegrade colonic enemas. Briefly, the procedure is performed under general anesthesia. The surgeon bring the end of the appendix (or a tubulized segment of the ileum) out through the abdominal wall. The appendix is opened and sutured to the abdominal skin.

PROCEDUREPercutaneous endoscopic caecostomy

Endoscopic procedure performed to obtain a percutaneous caecal access for the administration of antegrade colonic enemas. Briefly, a coloscopy is performed to reach the caecum. The cutaneous location of the caecostomy is determined by transillumination of the caecum. A caecopexy is performed with 3 anchors at the chosen location. A specific pig-tail catheter (Chait catheter) is placed percutaneously into the caecum in the center of the 3 anchors.

Sponsors

Nantes University Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
CASE_CONTROL
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Severe constipation and/or severe incontinence refractory to medical treatment.

Exclusion criteria

* Malone procedure or percutaneous endoscopic caecostomy between 2006 and 2016

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Comparison of the quality of life of patients treated with anterograde colonic enemas after Malone surgical technique and percutaneous endoscopic caecostomy.one yearQuality of life evaluated by the GastroIntestinal Quality of Life score (GIQLI). The GIQLI (GastroIntestinal Quality of Life) questionnaire consists of 36 questions giving a global quality of life score and 5 sub-scores (digestive symptoms, physical scale, mental scale, social scale and effects of drug treatments).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
constipationone yearConstipation will be evaluated by the Kess constipation severity score. The Kess questionnaire consists of 11 questions assessing the symptoms of constipation and giving a single score.
anal incontinenceone yearAnal incontinence will be evaluated with the WEXNER score. \- The Wexner questionnaire consists of 5 questions evaluating the symptoms of incontinence and giving a single score.

Countries

France

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026