For almost one hundred years abdominoperineal excision has been the standard treatment of choice for rectal cancer. With advances in the techniques for rectal resection and anastomosis, anterior resection with preservation of the sphincter function has become the preferred treatment for rectal cancers, except for those cancers very close to the anal sphincter. The main reason for this has been the conviction that the quality of life for patients with a colostomy after abdominoperineal excision was poorer than for patients undergoing an operation with a sphincter-preserving technique. However, patients having sphincter-preserving operations may experience symptoms affecting their quality of life that are different from stoma-patients.
To compare the quality of life in rectal cancer patients with or without permanent colostomy.
We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group's specialised register. Abstract books from major gastroenterological and colorectal congresses were searched. Reference lists of the selected articles were scrutinized.
All controlled clinical trials and observational studies in which quality of life was measured in patients with rectal cancer having either abdominoperineal excision/Hartmann's operation or low anterior resection, using a validated quality of life instrument, were considered.
One reviewer (JP) checked the titles and abstracts identified from the databases and hand search. Full text copies of all studies of possible relevance were obtained. The reviewer decided which studies met the inclusion criteria. Both reviewers independently extracted data. If information was insufficient the original author was contacted to obtain missing data. Extracted data were cross-checked and discrepancies resolved by consensus.
Sixty-nine potential studies were identified. Thirty-five of these, all non-randomised and representing 5127 participants met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen trials found that people undergoing abdominoperineal excision/Hartmann's operation did not have poorer quality of life measures than patients undergoing anterior resection. The rest of the studies found some difference, but not always in favour of non-stoma patients. Due to clinical heterogeneity and the fact that all studies were observational trials, meta-analysis of the included studies was not possible.
The studies included in this review do not allow firm conclusions as to the question of whether the quality of life of people after anterior resection is superior to that of people after abdominoperineal excision/Hartmann's operation. The included studies challenges the assumption that anterior resection patients fare better. Larger, better designed and executed prospective studies are needed to answer this question.
"However, results for overall quality of life (QoL), despite being measured by various validated instruments, were consistently equivocal . Similarly, a recently updated Cochrane Review has revealed that low anterior resection (LAR) did not lead to superior QoL . Given the equivalent survival outcomes, and the need to weigh QoL outcomes, the decision for rectal cancer surgery is therefore a value-laden one that deserves the consideration of the patient perspective. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Colorectal cancer is common in North America. Two surgical options exist for rectal cancer patients: low anterior resection with re-establishment of bowel continuity, and abdominoperineal resection with a permanent stoma. A rectal cancer decision aid was developed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards to facilitate patients being more actively involved in making this decision with the surgeon. The overall aim of this study is to evaluate this decision aid and explore barriers and facilitators to implementing in clinical practice.
First, a pre- and post- study will be guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Eligible patients from a colorectal cancer center include: 1) adult patients diagnosed with rectal cancer, 2) tumour at a maximum of 10 cm from anal verge, and 3) surgeon screened candidates eligible to consider both low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection. Patients will be given a paper-version and online link to the decision aid to review at home. Using validated tools, the primary outcomes will be decisional conflict and knowledge of surgical options. Secondary outcomes will be patient's preference, values associated with options, readiness for decision-making, acceptability of the decision aid, and feasibility of its implementation in clinical practice. Proposed analysis includes paired t-test, Wilcoxon, and descriptive statistics.Second, a survey will be conducted to identify the barriers and facilitators of using the decision aid in clinical practice. Eligible participants include Canadian surgeons working with rectal cancer patients. Surgeons will be given a pre-notification, questionnaire, and three reminders. The survey package will include the patient decision aid and a facilitators and barriers survey previously validated among physicians and nurses. Principal component analysis will be performed to determine common themes, and logistic regression will be used to identify variables associated with the intention to use the decision aid.
This study will evaluate the impact of the rectal cancer decision aid on patients and help with planning strategies to overcome barriers and facilitate implementation of the decision aid in routine clinical practice. To our knowledge this is the first study designed to evaluate a decision aid in the field of colorectal surgery.
BMC Surgery 03/2014; 14(1):16. DOI:10.1186/1471-2482-14-16 · 1.40 Impact Factor
"Over the last 20 years, the anal sphincter-preserving operation (SPO) has replaced abdominoperineal excision, becoming the procedure of choice for rectal cancers located near the anal sphincter.1 Even for patients in whom tumors are a definite indication for abdominoperineal excision, intersphincteric resection (ISR) has become an alternative approach with comparable tumor control.2 "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine [5-HT])3 receptor antagonists are effective for the treatment of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D), in which exaggerated intestinal/colonic hypermotility is often observed. Recent studies have suggested that the motility disorder, especially spastic hypermotility, seen in the neorectum following sphincter-preserving operations for rectal cancer may be the basis of the postoperative defecatory malfunction seen in these patients. We investigated the efficacy of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in patients suffering from severe low anterior resection syndrome.
A total of 25 male patients with complaints of uncontrollable urgency or fecal incontinence following sphincter-preserving operations were enrolled in this study. Defecatory status, assessed on the basis of incontinence score (0-20), urgency grade (0-3), and number of toilet visits per day, was evaluated using a questionnaire before and 1 month after the administration of the 5-HT3 antagonist ramosetron.
All the parameters assessed improved significantly after taking ramosetron for 1 month. The effect was more prominent in cases whose anastomotic line was lower, ie, inside the anal canal. Defecatory function was better in patients who commenced ramosetron therapy within 6 months postoperatively, as compared to those who were not prescribed ramosetron for more than 7 months postoperatively.
These results suggest that 5-HT3 antagonists are effective for the treatment of low anterior resection syndrome, as in diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. The improvement in symptoms is not merely time dependent, but it is related to treatment with 5-HT3 antagonists.
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology 03/2014; 7(1):47-52. DOI:10.2147/CEG.S55410
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.