These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Quality of life after rectal resection for cancer, with or without permanent colostomy.
    Author: Pachler J, Wille-Jørgensen P.
    Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2004; (3):CD004323. PubMed ID: 15266529.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: For almost one hundred years abdominoperineal excision has been the standard treatment of choice for rectal cancer. With advances in the techniques for rectal resection and anastomosis, anterior resection with preservation of the sphincter function has become the preferred treatment for rectal cancers, except for those cancers very close to the anal sphincter. The main reason for this has been the conviction that the quality of life for patients with a colostomy after abdominoperineal excision was poorer than for patients undergoing a sphincter-preserving technique. However, patients having sphincter-preserving operations may experience symptoms affecting their quality of life that are different from those withstoma-patients. OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality of life in rectal cancer patients with or without permanent colostomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group's specialised register. Abstracts books from major gastroenterological and colorectal congresses were searched. Reference lists of the selected articles were scrutinized. SELECTION CRITERIA: All controlled clinical trials and observational studies in which quality of life was measured in patients with rectal cancer having either abdominoperineal excision or low anterior resection, using a validated quality of life instrument, were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer (JP) checked the titles and abstracts identified from the databases and hand search. Full text copies of all studies of possible relevance were obtained. The reviewer decided which studies met the inclusion criteria. Both reviewers independently extracted data. If information was insufficient the original author was contacted to obtain missing data. Extracted data were crosschecked and discrepancies resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty five potential studies were identified. Eight of these, all non-randomised and representing 620 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Four trials found that people undergoing abdominoperineal excision did not have poorer quality of life measures than patients undergoing anterior resection. One study found that a stoma only slightly affected the persons quality of life. Three studies found that patients receiving abdominoperineal excision had significantly poorer quality of life than after anterior resection. Due to heterogeneity, meta-analysis of the included studies was not possible. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The studies included in this review do not allow firm conclusions as to the question of whether the quality of life of people after anterior resection is superior to that of people after abdominoperineal excision. The included studies challenged the assumption that anterior resection patients fare better.Larger, better designed and executed prospective studies are needed to answer this question.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]