Variation in Practice Surrounding Antegrade Colonic Enema Channel Placement

Antegrade colonic enemas (ACE) can be an effective management option for defecation disorders and improve quality of life. Best practice regarding channel placement is unclear and variation may exist around preferred initial type of channel, age at placement, and underlying diagnoses. We aimed to describe practice patterns and patient characteristics around ACE channel placement.

We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of children with an ACE channel cared for at sites participating in the Pediatric Colorectal and Pelvic Learning Consortium (PCPLC) from 2017 to 2022. Kruskal-Wallis test was utilized to test the age at surgery by site with significance level of 0.05.

500 patients with ACE channel were included. 293 (58.6%) patients had their ACE procedure at a PCPLC center. The median age at surgery was 7.6 [IQR 5.3-11.0] years for the overall cohort and 8.1 [IQR 5.3-11.5] years for placement at PCPLC centers. For PCPLC centers, median age at placement varied significantly across centers (p = 0.009). 371 (74.2%) patients received Malone appendicostomy, 116 (23.2%) received cecostomy, and 13 (2.6%) received Neo-Malone appendicostomy. Median age of patients by channel type was 7.7 [IQR 5.3-11.0], 7.5 [IQR 5.7-11.0], and 9.8 [IQR 4.2-11.6] years, respectively. The most common indication for cecostomy was idiopathic/refractory constipation (52.6%), whereas anorectal malformation was the most common indication for Malone (47.2%) and Neo-Malone (61.5%). Among ACE channels placed at PCPLC centers, there was variation across institutions in preferred initial channel type. The 4 highest volume centers favored Malone appendicostomy over cecostomy.

There is variation in practice of ACE channel placement. At specialty pediatric colorectal centers, age at time of placement and type of channel placed varied across institutions. Further work is needed to better characterize diagnosis- and age-focused patient centered outcomes to clarify recommendations for our patients who benefit from these procedures.

Retrospective comparative study.

Level III.