4.5 Article

Quality of life in patients with a permanent stoma after rectal cancer surgery

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 55-64

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-016-1367-6

关键词

HRQoL; Stoma; Parastomal; Hernia; Rectal cancer

资金

  1. Research and Education Centre (FoU) in Norrbotten, Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment is important in understanding the patient's perspective and for decision-making in health care. HRQoL is often impaired in patients with stoma. The aim was to evaluate HRQoL in rectal cancer patients with permanent stoma compared to patients without stoma. 711 patients operated for rectal cancer with abdomino-perineal resection or Hartman's procedure and a control group (n = 275) operated with anterior resection were eligible. Four QoL questionnaires were sent by mail. Comparisons of mean values between groups were made by StudentA ' s independent t test. Comparison was made to a Swedish background population. 336 patients with a stoma and 117 without stoma replied (453/986; 46 %). A bulging or a hernia around the stoma was present in 31.5 %. Operation due to parastomal hernia had been performed in 11.7 % in the stoma group. Mental health (p = 0.007), body image (p < 0.001), and physical (p = 0.016) and emotional function (p = 0.003) were inferior in patients with stoma. Fatigue (p = 0.019) and loss of appetite (p = 0.027) were also more prominent in the stoma group. Sexual function was impaired in the non-stoma group (p = 0.034). However in the stoma group, patients with a bulge/hernia had more sexual problems (p = 0.004). Pain was associated with bulge/hernia (p < 0.001) and fear for leakage decreased QoL (p < 0.001). HRQoL was impaired compared to the Swedish background population. Overall HRQoL in patients operated for rectal cancer with permanent stoma was inferior compared to patients without stoma. In the stoma group, a bulge or a hernia around the stoma further impaired HRQoL.

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

4.5
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