4.6 Article

Comparison of immediate surgical outcomes between posterior pelvic exenteration and standard resection for primary rectal cancer: A matched case-control study

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 14, Issue 15, Pages 2414-2417

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.14.2414

Keywords

pelvic exenteration; rectal cancer; outcomes; morbidity; postoperative bowel function

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To determine the immediate surgical outcome and recovery of bowel function following posterior pelvic exenteration (PPE) for primary rectal cancer with suspected local invasion to the female internal reproductive organs, in comparison with a case-control series of standard resection for primary rectal cancer. METHODS: We analyzed 10 consecutive female patients undergoing PPE for the aforementioned indication between December 2003 and May 2006 in a single institution. Data were prospectively collected during hospitalization, including patient demographics, tumor- and operation-related variables and early surgical outcomes. These patients were compared with a group of female patients, matched for age, co-morbidity and location of tumor, who underwent standard resection for primary rectal cancer in the same period (non PPE group). RESULTS: In the PPE group, pathological reports showed direct invasion of the reproductive organs in 4 cases and an involvement of lymph nodes in 7 cases. A sphincter-saving operation was performed in each case. Operative time was longer (274 min vs 157 min, P < 0.001) and blood loss was greater (769 mL vs 203 mL, P = 0.008) in the PPE group. Time to first bowel movement, time to first defecation, time to resumption of normal diet, and hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups. Postoperative complication rates were also similar. CONCLUSION: PPE for rectal cancer was associated with longer operative time and increased blood loss, but did not compromise immediate surgical outcomes and postoperative bowel function compared to standard rectal resection. (c) 2008 WJG. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available