Antegrade Colonic Enema Channels in Pediatric Patients Using Appendix or Cecal Flap: A Comparative Robotic vs Open...

We present perioperative outcomes of a single-center experience with robot-assisted antegrade colonic enema (ACE) channel creation for the treatment of chronic constipation refractory to medical therapy and compare it to the traditional open surgical approach. We also demonstrate a step-by-step video presentation of the robotic approach for cecal flap ACE performed as part of a dual continence procedure in patients with short length of appendix. A retrospective chart review of pediatric patients who underwent ACE channel creation between 2008 and 2020 was performed. We compared demographics and intraoperative and postoperative variables of the open vs robotic approach. Among 28 patients, 15 were open and 13 robotic. To construct the ACE channel, a cecal flap was utilized in 36%, split appendix in 50%, full-length appendix in 11%, and sigmoid colon in 3% of patients. Both approaches showed equivalent estimated blood loss (50 mL [interquartile range; IQR = 20-100]), median length of hospital stay (7 days vs 8 days, p = 0.7), and median time to return to regular diet (4 days vs 5 days, p = 0.5) (Table 1). Patients in the open group were more likely to have a history of prior abdominal surgeries than those in the robotic group (80% vs 38.5%, p = 0.02). The risk of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or more complications (40% vs 23.1%, p = 0.04) and the rate of ACE channel stenosis (46.7% vs 7.7%, p = 0.02) were significantly higher in the open approach. Channel stenosis was significantly higher in patients with an appendix ACE channel (87.5% vs 12.5%, p < 0.05) compared to those with cecal flap ACE. [Table: see text] Robot-assisted ACE channel creation is a safe and acceptable alternative with a significantly lower rate of channel stenosis and other clavien dindo grade 3 complications compared to the traditional open approach. Cecal flaps are also at a lower risk of stomal stenosis than appendix.