ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2023
Can the POLARS tool accurately predict low anterior resection syndrome in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic resection?
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preventative strategies for low anterior resection syndrome.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Pooled it
- Predictive Risk Factors for Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) in Rectal Cancer-An Observational Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of surgical strategy for low anterior resection syndrome using preoperative low anterior resection syndrome score in China.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Validity assessment of the POLARS score tool in the prediction of post rectal cancer surgery LARS score in a population-based Swedish cohort.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: What Have We Learned Assessing a Large Population?Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Radical rectal cancer resection can lead to a long-term bowel function impairment known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). It remains unclear how to determine which patients are at a higher risk of developing LARS post-surgery. The POLARS tool was designed to predict the onset and severity of LARS in rectal cancer patients after surgery. The study aimed to assess the accuracy of POLARS in predicting the onset of LARS. Material and methods: A total of 66 rectal cancer patients treated laparoscopically between January 2016 and December 2017 were included in this retrospective study. Using POLARS, the predictive value for the occurrence of LARS was documented. During an average 17-month follow-up period, the bowel function of the patients was assessed using the dedicated LARS questionnaire. The predicted and actual scores were then compared. Results: Study participants included 36 women (54.5%) and 30 men (45.5%), with a mean age of 62.55 years (standard deviation: 10.2; range: 37-81). The mean predicted score according to POLARS was 24.5 (i.e. category "minor LARS"), and the mean actual score in the follow-up period was 16.42 ("no LARS" category). In only 39% of patients, the predicted LARS category was the same as the actual LARS category assessed by the questionnaire. Worse bowel function than reported at follow-up was predicted in 75% of all mispredictions. Conclusions: POLARS did not prove to be accurate in predicting the risk and severity of LARS in these patients, although the average numbers appear promising. Further evaluation of the POLARS tool using a larger cohort is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.