4.5 Article

Prevalence of low anterior resection syndrome and impact on quality of life after rectal cancer surgery: population-based study

期刊

BJS OPEN
卷 4, 期 5, 页码 935-942

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.50312

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Bengt Ihre Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The prevalence of major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after rectal cancer surgery varies from 17 center dot 8 to 56 center dot 0 per cent, but data from high-quality studies are sparse. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of LARS and its association with quality of life (QoL) in a large, well defined, population-based cohort. Methods: This was a population-based study that included all patients who had curative rectal cancer surgery with total or partial mesorectal excision in Stockholm County in Sweden between 2007 and 2013. Patients without a remaining stoma, free from cancer and alive in April 2017 were eligible for the study. The LARS score questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30 and Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence score were used as outcome measures. Adjusted mean scores (and differences) of EORTC QLQ-C30 for LARS groups were calculated using repeated measures ANCOVA regression models while adjusting for predefined confounders. Results: In total, 481 patients (82 center dot 6 per cent response rate) were included in the analysis. Mean follow-up time was 6 center dot 7 (range 3 center dot 4-11 center dot 0) years after surgery. The prevalence of LARS was 77 center dot 4 per cent (370 of 478 patients), with 53 center dot 1 per cent (254 of 478) experiencing major LARS. Patients with major LARS reported worse on all EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales (except for financial difficulties) than patients without LARS. A higher mean LARS score was associated with a greater impact on bowel-related QoL. Conclusion: After anterior resection for rectal cancer, the majority of patients suffer from major LARS with a negative impact on QoL.

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