Contents

Duhamel ProcedureEdit

The Duhamel procedure, sometimes called the Duhamel pull-through, is a pediatric colorectal operation used to treat Hirschsprung disease by removing the aganglionic portion of the bowel and establishing a functional passage for stool. Named for its developer, the technique has stood the test of time and remains a foundational option in pediatric surgery. It is typically performed via an open or minimally invasive approach that creates a posterior rectal pocket and a spur to separate the native, innervated bowel from the distal rectal cuff, allowing the normal bowel to drain through the anal canal while preserving the sphincter mechanism.

Since its introduction in the mid-20th century, the Duhamel procedure has evolved alongside other pull-through methods—such as the Soave and Swenson procedures—and today is performed in both traditional open fashion and modern transanal variants. Advocates emphasize durable continence, reliability in challenging anatomy, and the potential for staged operations in very young or ill patients. Critics, particularly among proponents of newer techniques, argue that some innovations may reduce morbidity or shorten recovery, but supporters of the established approach point to decades of outcome data and surgical expertise as the bedrock of patient safety. From a traditional perspective, the Duhamel method represents a robust, well-understood solution grounded in long-standing surgical judgment and clinical experience.

Hirschsprung disease is the underlying condition addressed by the Duhamel procedure. It results from the absence of ganglion cells in the distal bowel, leading to a functional obstruction. Diagnosis typically involves preoperative assessments such as rectal biopsy to confirm absence of ganglion cells and radiographic studies to delineate the transition zone. The procedure seeks to resect the aganglionic segment and connect the innervated bowel to the anal canal in a way that preserves the anal sphincter and minimizes trauma to surrounding structures. For readers exploring this topic, related discussions include Hirschsprung disease and the anatomy of the rectum.

Overview

  • History and scope: The Duhamel procedure has a long history in pediatric colorectal surgery and remains in wide use, particularly for complex or long-segment disease, where alternative pull-through strategies may be less straightforward. It sits alongside other established approaches such as Swenson procedure and Soave procedure as part of a family of pull-through techniques that aim to restore bowel function while protecting continence.
  • Core concept: After removing the aganglionic segment, a posterior approach creates a rectal pocket that allows the contrast or stool to pass from the normal colon into the anus, with a deliberate spur dividing the two lumens. The goal is durable function with preservation of sphincter control.

Indications

  • Primary indication: Hirschsprung disease presenting in infancy or early childhood, particularly cases where there is extensive disease or when a staged approach is favored. See Hirschsprung disease for the broader diagnostic and management context.
  • Patient factors: The Duhamel method is chosen based on anatomy, age, and the surgeon’s assessment of which pull-through approach will yield reliable continence and growth. It is sometimes preferred when a straightforward, reproducible operation is desirable in centers with extensive experience in traditional methods.
  • Alternatives and sequencing: In some settings, initial diversion with a colostomy may be used, followed by definitive pull-through, depending on risk factors and the transition zone. The decision-making process often involves weighing the patient’s immediate risks against long-term functional goals.

Surgical technique

  • Preoperative assessment: Diagnostic clarity about the transition zone and the extent of disease guides planning. Preoperative imaging and tissue biopsy support the surgical plan.
  • Resection and reconstruction: The aganglionic segment is removed, and the normally innervated bowel is mobilized to reach the anal canal. A posterior rectal cuff or pocket is created, and the distal bowel is connected in a manner that leaves a spur between the two lumens. The result is a single drainage pathway from the colon to the anus with preserved pelvic floor function.
  • Approaches and variants: The technique has both open and transanal variants. The transanal pull-through (often referred to in modern practice as a transanal pull-through or transanal Duhamel in some centers) represents a minimally invasive evolution of the principle.
  • Staging and management: In certain patients, especially neonates or those with complicated anatomy, a staged plan with an initial diversion followed by definitive pull-through remains a common strategy.

Outcomes and complications

  • Continence and function: Many patients achieve satisfactory continence and growth with the Duhamel procedure, though functional outcomes can vary with disease extent, associated anomalies, and the presence of a rectal spur.
  • Common complications: Potential issues include a rectal or anal stenosis, an anastomotic or internal-rectal scar, mucosal prolapse, or residual stool burden from the spur. Enterocolitis remains a concern in the broader Hirschsprung population and requires ongoing vigilance.
  • Long-term considerations: As with any pull-through technique, long-term bowel function and quality of life depend on a combination of surgical technique, postoperative care, and family-driven management of bowel habits.

Current practice and debates

  • Comparative effectiveness: In contemporary practice, many centers employ a range of pull-through options, selecting the approach that best fits the patient’s anatomy and the surgeon’s experience. Transanal approaches have grown in popularity for their minimally invasive nature, but the Duhamel procedure retains a loyal following for cases where its reliability and clarity of the dissection are valued.
  • Two-stage vs one-stage: A central debate concerns when to perform a one-stage definitive pull-through versus a staged approach with initial diversion. Proponents of traditional methods emphasize the safety and predictability of the established technique, particularly in high-risk infants, while advocates of newer, less invasive approaches highlight faster recovery and reduced morbidity in appropriate candidates.
  • Innovation vs tradition: On one side, proponents of innovation argue for adopting newer techniques that may improve pain, cosmetic outcomes, or hospital stay. On the other, traditionalists argue that patient safety and long-term function are best served by time-tested methods and rigorous data. Critics of what they view as overhyped progress sometimes accuse some critics of letting ideological narratives drive medical decisions rather than focusing on clinical outcomes and patient needs. Supporters of the traditional approach contend that well-documented results and the practical wisdom of experienced surgeons should guide care, rather than unproven hype.
  • Widespread experience and data: Proponents of the Duhamel method emphasize decades of institutional experience, reproducible techniques, and the value of a known risk profile. They argue that patient-centered decisions should rely on evidence about long-term continence, growth, and quality of life, rather than fashionable but less-proven innovations.

See also