4.5 Article

Impact of autonomic nerve preservation and lateral node dissection on male urogenital function after total mesorectal excision for lower rectal cancer

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 1014-1019

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-005-0050-9

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Urogenital dysfunction is a well recognized complication of rectal cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of autonomic nerve preservation (ANP) and lateral node dissection (LND) on male urogenital function after total mesorectal excision for lower rectal cancer. Methods: We studied, using a questionnaire, preoperative and current urogenital function in 47 male patients who underwent total mesorectal excision with the ANP technique for lower rectal cancer. Patients with and without LND were analyzed separately. Results: A total of 37 patients (78.7%) (22 patients without LND, 15 with LND) returned the questionnaire. Among the 15 patients with LND, 2 underwent unilateral ANP. One patient without LND had urinary dysfunction preoperatively, and among the other 21 patients only 2 (9.5%) reported minor urinary complications postoperatively. After LND, 5 patients (33%) reported minor complications; there were no severe complications. Among patients who were sexually active prior to the operation, 90% and 70% of patients without LND and 50% and 10% of those with LND maintained sexual activity and ejaculation, respectively. However, 50% of patients who underwent low anterior resection or Hartmann resection without LND and all patients with abdominoperineal resection or LND reported reduced overall sexual satisfaction. Conclusions: The ANP technique offers the great advantage of maintaining urogenital function after rectal cancer surgery. After LND, although the ANP technique minimized urinary dysfunction, sexual function, particularly ejaculation, was often damaged. Careful follow-up is important even after ANP to improve postoperative sexual satisfaction.

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