Document Detail

Anal canal duplication in an 11-year-old-child.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  24151565     Owner:  NLM     Status:  PubMed-not-MEDLINE    
Anal canal duplication (ACD) is the least frequent digestive duplication. Symptoms are often absent but tend to increase with age. Recognition is, however, important as almost half of the patients with ACD have concomitant malformations. We present the clinical history of an eleven-year-old girl with ACD followed by a review of symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis based on all the reported cases in English literature.
S Van Biervliet; E Maris; S Vande Velde; D Vande Putte; V Meerschaut; N Herregods; R De Bruyne; M Van Winckel; K Van Renterghem
Related Documents :
2325095 - A case of atelosteogenesis.
1416055 - Morphological variants of the suprapatellar bursa.
9672465 - Unrecognized traumatic atlanto-occipital dislocation.
18488165 - Bilateral total hip arthroplasty in morquio-brailsford's syndrome: a report of two cases.
2715705 - Airgun pellet injuries of the neck.
19341995 - The use of topical anaesthesia during repair of minor lacerations in departments of eme...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2013-09-15
Journal Detail:
Title:  Case reports in gastrointestinal medicine     Volume:  2013     ISSN:  2090-6528     ISO Abbreviation:  Case Rep Gastrointest Med     Publication Date:  2013  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2013-10-23     Completed Date:  2013-10-23     Revised Date:  2013-10-28    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101580185     Medline TA:  Case Rep Gastrointest Med     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  503691     Citation Subset:  -    
Departement of Pediatric Gastro-Enterology, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Case Rep Gastrointest Med
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Case Rep Gastrointest Med
Journal ID (publisher-id): CRIM.GM
ISSN: 2090-6528
ISSN: 2090-6536
Publisher: Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Article Information
Download PDF
Copyright © 2013 S. Van Biervliet et al.
Received Day: 24 Month: 6 Year: 2013
Accepted Day: 13 Month: 8 Year: 2013
Print publication date: Year: 2013
Electronic publication date: Day: 15 Month: 9 Year: 2013
Volume: 2013E-location ID: 503691
PubMed Id: 24151565
ID: 3787627
DOI: 10.1155/2013/503691

Anal Canal Duplication in an 11-Year-Old-Child
S. Van Biervliet1*
E. Maris1
S. Vande Velde1
D. Vande Putte2
V. Meerschaut3
N. Herregods3
R. De Bruyne1
M. Van Winckel1
K. Van Renterghem2
1Departement of Pediatric Gastro-Enterology, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
2Departement of Pediatric Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
3Departement of Pediatric Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
Correspondence: *S. Van Biervliet:
[other] Academic Editors: R. J. L. F. Loffeld and J. Theisen

1. Case Report

An eleven-year-old foster child was referred to the paediatric gastroenterology department because of an extra perianal orifice. The patient complained of anal pruritus. Previous treatment with mebendazole because of the suspicion of oxyuriasis had no effect. Physical examination revealed an extra orifice, in the midline posterior to the anus. Rectal palpation was normal. The anal canal appeared normal, with normal anal reflexes. This extra orifice had been observed at birth, with an expectative management advised in her native country. Cardiac ultrasound was normal. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a normal sacrum and coccyx but could not demonstrate the extra orifice or fistula. The genitourinary system, as evaluated in MRI, was normal. Fistulography (Figure 1) showed a 1.5 cm blind-ending fistula, not communicating with the rectum.

The patient and her parents were counselled about the diagnosis of ACD and the possible complications: inflammation and malignancy. Nevertheless they refused surgical mucosal stripping.

2. Discussion

ACD is the least frequent digestive duplication. Clinically, it presents itself as an extra perineal orifice located just behind the anus. Clinically, it is difficult to differentiate ACD from a rectal or anal fistula, however, in noncomplicated ACD inflammation will be absent. Only histology gives diagnostic certainty describing 3 characteristics of ACD: squamous epithelium in the caudal end, transitional epithelium in the cranial end and smooth-muscle cells in the wall of the canal [1, 2]. It is most frequently a tubular (90%) anomaly without communication to the rectum. In 10% of cases, the lesion is cystic [3]. We found only 55 patients (including our patient) with ACD in English literature (Table 1). Females comprise up to 89% of the patients with ACD (Table 1).

Two hypotheses concerning the origin of anal canal duplication are suggested in literature.

Choi and Park postulate it as a consequence of recanalization of a cloacal membrane excess in late embryonic life [4]. Hamada et al. suggest a duplication of the dorsal cloaca in an early developmental stage [5].

Half of the patients with ACD are asymptomatic. Parents or caregivers notice a perianal orifice posterior to the anus. Mild symptoms such as anal pain, pruritus, mucous discharge and constipation are present in one third of the patients. Perineal abscess or inflammation can, however, be the presenting complication of ACD. Although ACD is present at birth, it can easily be overlooked resulting in a widely varying age at presentation (Table 1). Diagnosis at a later age is more often associated with complications [3]. In the reported cases, there is a significant age difference according to the symptom severity (P < 0.03) with a median age in the asymptomatic reported patient of 0.8 y (minimum and maximum 0–9 y), in the patients with mild symptoms 4 y (0.1–16 y) and in the patient with complications 6.5 y (0.1–45 y). Inflammation, due to the presence of mucosal glands, infection, abscess formation, and subsequent sepsis are the immediate risks. On the long term, Dukes and Galvin reported malignancy in 8 of 10 adult patients of what they believed to be ectopic tracks of congenital origin [6]. Almost all articles on ACD use this old reference to warn about the risk of malignancy. However, the patients described by Dukes and Galvin are 90% males and suffer from multiple fistulas as can be seen on the clinical pictures of the paper whereas ACD patients in more recent publications are in 89% of cases female with only one orifice. As the wall of the ACD consists of squamous and transitional epithelium, unremarked degeneration of the mucosa in this duplication remains possible.

Clinical suspicion and characteristics can lead to a tentative diagnosis of ACD. Imaging studies give extra information on the extent of the lesion and concomitant anomalies. MRI of the pelvis and presacral area gives a detailed view of the region. In neonates, however, ultrasound examination is preferred as they require general anaesthesia for MRI. Associated malformations are described in 35% (Table 1), including genitourinary malformations (ureteric duplication, external genitalia anomalies), congenital heart defects, cleft palate presacral mass (teratoma, dermoid cyst), sacral dysgenesis, and other anorectal malformations.

It is advised to treat even asymptomatic ACD with surgery to prevent malignancy and infectious complications and to get diagnostic certainty with the histological examination of the excised material. Different approaches are suggested in literature. The majority of patients received an ACD removal via perianal or posterior sagittal approach. Mucosal stripping of the ACD is a new, less invasive approach most frequently used when the ACD is located very close to the anal canal. Surgical repair is associated with good prognosis and minor surgical sequelae. Up to now only one patient suffers from sphincter insufficiency [4].

3. Conclusion

Anal canal duplication is an extremely rare congenital anomaly of the digestive tract. A posterior perianal orifice, particularly in female patients, sometimes accompanied by aspecific symptoms should raise the suspicion of anal canal duplication. Clinical suspicion can be elaborated by imaging studies visualising the ACD and associated anomalies. Surgical removal, before the age of 1, is advocated to prevent complications. Histology gives confirmation of this anomaly.

Authors' Contribution

S. Van Biervliet and E. Maris shared in this paper.

1. Ochiai K,Umeda T,Murahashi O,Sugitoh T. Anal-canal duplication in a 6-year-old childPediatric Surgery InternationalYear: 2002182-31951972-s2.0-003652352911956798
2. Carpentier H,Maizlin I,Bliss D. Anal canal duplication: case reviews and summary of the world literaturePediatric Surgery InternationalYear: 200925109119162-s2.0-7334911882519727768
3. Lisi G,Illiceto MT,Rossi C,Broto JM,Jil-Vernet JM,Lelli Chiesa P. Anal canal duplication: a retrospective analysis of 12 cases from two European pediatric surgical departmentsPediatric Surgery InternationalYear: 200622129679732-s2.0-3375127718417061104
4. Choi S-O,Park W-H. Anal canal duplication in infantsJournal of Pediatric SurgeryYear: 20033857087122-s2.0-0037660144
5. Hamada Y,Sato M,Hioki K. Anal canal duplication in childhoodPediatric Surgery InternationalYear: 19961185775792-s2.0-002998296024057855
6. Dukes CE,Galvin C. Colloid carcinoma arising whithin fistula in the anorectal regionAnnals of The Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandYear: 19561824626113314520
7. Sinnya S,Curtis K,Walsh M,Wong D,Kimble R. Late presentation of anal canal duplication in an adolescent female-a rare diagnosisInternational Journal of Colorectal DiseaseYear: 2012
8. Lippert SJ,Hartin CW Jr.,Ozgediz DE. Communicating anal canal duplication cyst in an adolescent girlColorectal DiseaseYear: 2012145e270e2712-s2.0-8485923604522023019
9. Narci A,Dilek FH,Çetinkurşun S. Anal canal duplicationEuropean Journal of PediatricsYear: 201016956336352-s2.0-7795209402519856187
10. Koga H,Okazaki T,Kato Y,Lane GJ,Yamataka A. Anal canal duplication: experience at a single institution and literature reviewPediatric Surgery InternationalYear: 201026109859882-s2.0-7795760407720668865
11. Kratz JR,Deshpande V,Ryan DP,Goldstein AM. Anal canal duplication associated with presacral cystJournal of Pediatric SurgeryYear: 2008439174917522-s2.0-5084909953018779021
12. Tiryaki T,Şenel E,Atayurt H. Anal canal duplication in children: a new techniquePediatric Surgery InternationalYear: 20062265605612-s2.0-3374446476516538439
13. Jacquier C,Dobremez E,Piolat C,Dyon J-F,Nugues F. Anal canal duplication in infants and children—a series of 6 casesEuropean Journal of Pediatric SurgeryYear: 20011131861912-s2.0-003496296111475116
14. Ponson AE,Festen C. Postanal sinus: single or different etiologies?Pediatric Surgery InternationalYear: 200117145472-s2.0-003511593311294268
15. Tagart REB. Congenital anal duplication: a cause of para anal sinusBritish Journal of SurgeryYear: 19776475255282-s2.0-0017712018922319
16. Aaronson I. Anterior sacral meningocele, anal canal duplication cyst and covered anus occurring in one familyJournal of Pediatric SurgeryYear: 1970555595632-s2.0-00148685675505693

Article Categories:
  • Case Report

Previous Document:  TSH-Secreting Pituitary Macroadenoma in a Girl with Lingual Thyroid.
Next Document:  Persistent mosaicism for 12p duplication/triplication chromosome structural abnormality in periphera...