4.5 Review

Sexual dysfunction following rectal cancer surgery

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
Volume 32, Issue 11, Pages 1523-1530

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-017-2826-4

Keywords

Sexual dysfunction; Rectal cancer; Colorectal surgery; Nerve sparing surgery; Erectile dysfunction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Sexual and urological problems after surgery for rectal cancer are common, multifactorial, inadequately discussed, and untreated. The urogenital function is dependent on dual autonomic sympathetic and parasympathetic innervation, and four key danger zones exist that are at risk for nerve damage during colorectal surgery: one of these sites is in the abdomen and three are in the pelvis. The aim of this study is to systematically review the epidemiology of sexual dysfunction following rectal cancer surgery, to describe the anatomical basis of autonomic nerve-preserving techniques, and to explore the scientific evidence available to support the laparoscopic or robotic approach over open surgery. Methods According to the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search of studies evaluating sexual function in patients undergoing rectal surgery for cancer was performed in Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials. Results An increasing number of studies assessing the incidence and prevalence of sexual dysfunction following multimodality treatment for rectal cancer has been published over the last 30 years. Significant heterogeneity in the prevalence of sexual dysfunction is reported in the literature, with rates between 5 and 90%. Conclusions There is no evidence to date in favor of any surgical approach (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic). Standardized diagnostic tools should be routinely used to prospectively assess sexual function in patients undergoing rectal surgery.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available