4.5 Article

Quality of life after coloanal anastomosis and abdominoperineal resection for distal rectal cancers: sphincter preservation vs quality of life

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 13, 期 8, 页码 872-877

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02347.x

关键词

Abdominoperineal resection; quality of life; rectal cancer; sexual and urinary function

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim A permanent colostomy is considered to have an adverse impact on quality of life (QOL). However, functional outcomes following sphincter preservation also affect QOL. Our aim was to determine differences in QOL of patients undergoing coloanal anastomosis (CAA) or abdominoperineal resection (APR) for distal rectal cancer. Method Eighty-five patients underwent CAA (72 with intestinal continuity and 13 with a stoma because of complications) and 83 patients underwent APR for a distal rectal cancer between 1995 and 2001 at a single institution and responded to our survey. QOL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38. Results Patients with CAA were younger than APR patients (mean age 57 vs 62 years, P < 0.001), but gender distribution, tumour stage and proportion of subjects receiving radiotherapy was not significantly different. Patients undergoing CAA had higher scores (better QOL) for physical functioning; lower scores (fewer symptoms) for fatigue, pain, financial difficulties, weight loss and chemotherapy side effects; and higher scores (more symptoms) for constipation and gastrointestinal symptoms compared with APR patients. CAA patients had higher scores (better QOL) for body image in men but not in women. Sexual functioning scores in men and women were lower (worse QOL) in CAA patients compared with APR patients. Conclusions QOL after APR is comparable to sphincter preservation, although there are some differences that need to be considered. QOL and functional results should be taken into account with the oncological outcome when devising management strategy for distal rectal cancer.

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