4.5 Article

Current use of diverting stoma in anterior resection for cancer: population-based cohort study of total and partial mesorectal excision

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 579-585

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-015-2465-6

关键词

Rectal cancer; Defunctioning stoma; Fecal diversion; Permanent stoma

资金

  1. Cancer Research Foundation in Northern Sweden
  2. Visare Norr Fund, Northern County Councils

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose A diverting stoma is commonly used to reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage when performing total mesorectal excision (TME) in anterior resection for rectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of fecal diversion in relation to partial mesorectal excision (PME). Methods A retrospective analysis was undertaken on a national cohort, originally created to study the impact of central arterial ligation on patients with increased cardiovascular risk. Some 741 patients operated with anterior resection for rectal cancer during the years 2007 through 2010 were followed up for 53 months. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of diverting stoma on the risk of anastomotic leakage and permanent stoma, expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Results The risk of anastomotic leakage was increased in TME surgery when not using a diverting stoma (OR 5.1; 95 % CI 2.2-11.6), while the corresponding risk increase in PME patients was modest (OR 1.8; 95 % CI 0.8-4.0). At study completion or death, 26 and 13 % of TME and PME patients, respectively, had a permanent stoma. A diverting stoma was a statistically significant risk factor for a permanent stoma in PME patients (OR 4.7; 95 % CI 2.5-9.0), while less important in TME patients (OR 1.8; 95 % CI 0.6-5.5). Conclusion The benefit of a diverting stoma concerning anastomotic leakage in this patient group seems doubtful. Moreover, the diverting stoma itself may contribute to the high rate of permanent stomas.

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