ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Comparison of long-term quality of life based on surgical procedure in patients with rectal cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multicentre prospective study of anal function after laparoscopic ultra-low rectal cancer surgery using a mixed-effects model.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Trial
- Salvage Surgery After Non-Curative Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Colorectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Beyond survival: a comprehensive review of quality of life in rectal cancer patients.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Review
- The Safety and Effectiveness of Telemedicine for Cancer-Related Colostomy Care in the Early Stage of Discharge: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Center Study.Telemedicine reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Reports on the long-term quality of life (QOL) over 3 years after surgery in patients who have undergone surgery for rectal cancer are limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the long-term QOL of patients who underwent high anterior resection (HAR), low anterior resection (LAR), internal sphincter resection (ISR), or abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer. Methods: A questionnaire regarding QOL was sent to 360 patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative resection by HAR, LAR, ISR, or APR between January 2005 and December 2015. QOL was assessed using the short-form 36 (SF-36) and modified fecal incontinence QOL (mFIQL) questionnaire. QOL between surgical procedures was analyzed using a multivariate model adjusted for age, sex, and postoperative time. Results: A total of 144 patients responded with a median follow-up period of 94 months (range 38-233 months). According to surgical procedure, HAR was performed in 26 patients, LAR in 80 patients, ISR in 32 patients, and APR in 6 patients. Patients who underwent HAR had significantly better mFIQL scores than those who underwent LAR and ISR (p=0.013 and p=0004, respectively) and significantly better role/social component summary scores on the SF-36 subscales (p=0.007). No difference was observed in the mFIQL scores between patients who underwent ISR and those who underwent APR (p=0.8423). In addition, postoperative anastomotic leakage sutures did not influence the mFIQL and SF-36 scores after surgery. Conclusion: The QOL of patients who underwent anus-preserving surgery was best in the HAR group, with the QOL of other groups similar to the APR group. These results suggest that anus- preserving surgery is acceptable from a QOL standpoint. However, a colostomy may be a more satisfactory procedure in some patients.
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.