4.3 Article

Is radiological psoas muscle area measurement a predictor of postoperative complications after rectal resection for rectal cancer? A retrospective study

Journal

SURGERY TODAY
Volume 52, Issue 2, Pages 306-315

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00595-021-02346-x

Keywords

Rectal cancer; Sarcopenia; Psoas muscle; Postoperative complications; Remote infection

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that sarcopenia, diagnosed using the psoas muscle index, was an independent predictive factor for postoperative complications, particularly remote infections, following curative low anterior resection for rectal cancer.
Purpose Previous studies have reported that sarcopenia increases the risk of postoperative complications following colorectal resection. This retrospective study assessed the postoperative complications of rectal resection associated with sarcopenia. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 262 patients who underwent curative low anterior resection for primary rectal cancer from January 2008 to May 2020 at our institution. The patients were divided into a sarcopenia group (normalized total psoas muscle area < 6.36 cm(2)/m(2) in males and < 3.92 cm(2)/m(2) in females; N = 49) and a non-sarcopenia group (N = 213). Results The overall rate of postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery was higher in the sarcopenia group than in the non-sarcopenia group (46.9 vs. 29.6%; P = 0.028). The rate of postoperative remote infections was higher in the sarcopenia group than in the non-sarcopenia group (12.2 vs. 2.8%; P = 0.012). Sarcopenia was found to be a predictor of remote infection by a multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 4.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-14.80; P = 0.033). Conclusion Sarcopenia diagnosed using the psoas muscle index was found to be an independent predictive factor for postoperative remote infection after curative low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available