4.5 Article

Perioperative radiotherapy is an independent risk factor for major LARS: a cross-sectional observational study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
Volume 33, Issue 8, Pages 1063-1069

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-018-3043-5

Keywords

Low anterior resection syndrome; LARS score; Risk factors; Radiotherapy; Adaptation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer is often associated with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). The aim of our study was to determine the prevalence of LARS in our institution and identify possible risk factors for LARS. Furthermore, we evaluated which of the LARS symptoms was considered most disabling by patients and whether or not there is an adaptation of the LARS score over time. This study includes a prospective database of 100 patients who underwent total or partial mesorectal excision between January 2009 and September 2014. Patients were contacted after a median postoperative time of 38 (5-45) months to determine the LARS score and to identify LARS symptoms that were considered most disabling. Uni- and multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for LARS and major LARS. Finally, the LARS score was evaluated over time after restoration of bowel continuity. Out of the 100 patients, 16 had minor LARS (score 21-29) and 51 patients had major LARS (score 30-42). Radiotherapy was an independent risk factor for major LARS (p = 0.04). For the majority of patients with major LARS (22%), fragmentation was considered the most disabling complaint. There was no correlation between interval after restoration of bowel continuity and the severity of the LARS score. Perioperative radiotherapy is an independent risk factor for major LARS. Fragmentation is considered the most disabling complaint in the majority of patients with major LARS. There is no significant adaptation of the LARS score over time.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available