4.5 Article

Abdominoperineal resection or anterior resection for rectal cancer: patient preferences before and after treatment

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 8, 期 7, 页码 575-580

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.01000.x

关键词

rectal cancer; patient preferences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Literature data do not provide any evidence as to whether oncological outcome and quality of life after anterior resection (AR) are superior to those observed after abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low-lying rectal cancer. In view of this, patient preferences should play an important role in the process of decision making. The aim of this study was to investigate these preferences. Patients and methods A series of consecutive patients with rectal cancer (60 prior to surgery, 65 after APR and 124 after AR) who attended our outpatient clinic were asked to express their preference as to the type of surgery. The second part of the study was performed 4 years later; 30 patients evaluated before surgery, free of disease, were again asked to express their preference as to the type of treatment. Results Patient preferences as to performing APR, AR or as to leaving the decision to the surgeon were as follows: (i) the group prior to surgery - 5%, 30% and 65%, respectively, (ii) group after APR - 46%, 22% and 32%, respectively, and (iii) group after AR - 4%, 69% and 28%, respectively. Patients after AR pointed to the type of surgery that they had undergone more frequently than patients after APR (69%vs 46%, respectively, P < 0.001). Sixty per cent of patients evaluated twice had altered their initial preferences, usually choosing the type of surgery that they had undergone. Conclusions Our results suggest that the sequelae of AR are generally perceived as more acceptable than those of APR. Nevertheless, approximately half of the patients after APR prefer the type of surgery that they have undergone, which suggests the positive reappraisal of APR, once experienced.

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