4.3 Article

Functional outcome, quality of life, and efficacy of probiotics in postoperative patients with colorectal cancer

期刊

SURGERY TODAY
卷 41, 期 9, 页码 1200-1206

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00595-010-4450-6

关键词

Postoperative quality of life; Colorectal cancer; Bowel function; Probiotics

类别

资金

  1. St. Luke's Life Science Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the functional outcome and health-related quality of life (QOL) of patients who underwent a surgical resection of colorectal cancer, and reviewed the efficacy of probiotics for improving bowel function. A questionnaire was mailed to 193 patients. Questionnaires contained the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 as QOL scores, the Wexner incontinence score, and original questionnaire items about bowel functions. Probiotics, containing Bacillus natto and Lactobacillus acidophilus, were given to 77 patients for 3 months; after 3 months of treatment, the same questionnaire was administered. The results were analyzed by location of the resected cancer: rectal, colonic, right, and left. In the rectal group, defecation frequency, anal pain, and the Wexner score were significantly worse than in the colonic group. In the right group, the fecal form was looser and nighttime defecation frequency was higher than those of the left group. Three items in the QOL score of the right group were significantly worse compared with the left group. Functional outcome including defecation frequency, feeling of incomplete defecation, and five items in the QOL score were significantly improved after taking probiotics. Improvement in functional outcome and/or QOL was observed in all groups. Not only rectal resection but also rightside colectomy affected bowel dysfunction. Probiotics could be an effective treatment for improvement in functional outcome and QOL after colorectal resection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据