4.3 Article

Comparison of defecatory function after colonic J-pouch anastomosis and straight anastomosis for stapled low anterior resection: Results of a prospective randomized trial

期刊

SURGERY TODAY
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 104-110

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s005950200001

关键词

low anterior resection; stapled anastomosis; colonic J-pouch; defecatory function; anorectal physiology

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. Although defecatory function after low anterior resection for rectal cancer is reported to be better following colonic J-pouch than straight anastomosis, few prospective randomized trials comparing the two form of anastomosis have been reported. We performed a prospective randomized trial comparing straight anastomosis with colonic J-pouch anastomosis both clinically and physiologically in patients undergoing stapled low colorectal anastomosis. Methods. A total of 42 consecutive patients were intraoperatively randomized to undergo either straight anastomosis or colonic J-pouch anastomosis. Clinical defecatory function was evaluated by a questionnaire answered preoperatively, then 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Anorectal physiological assessment was also carried out before surgery, then 12 months postoperatively. Results. The clinical defecatory function assessed 6 months and 12 months after surgery did not differ between the two groups. However, while the length of high-pressure zone was significantly shortened, and (neo)rectal capacity was significantly reduced postoperatively in the straight group, none of these physiological parameters were significantly altered in the pouch group. Conclusion. Although the aim of colonic J-pouch to preserve reservoir function was physiologically achieved, the improvement in clinical defecatory function was not significant. Thus, further prospective studies are needed to confirm the functional superiority of colonic J-pouch anastomosis for stapled low colorectal anastomosis after low anterior 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