Observational studyTechniques in coloproctology2025
A word of caution in the functional monitoring of patients after rectal cancer surgery: a multicentre observational study.
Observational study in Techniques in coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with rectal cancer often experience adverse effects on urinary, sexual, and digestive functions. Despite recognised impacts and available treatments, they are not fully integrated into follow-up protocols, thereby hindering appropriate interventions. The aim of the study was to discern the activities conducted in our routine clinical practice outside of clinical trials.
methodsThis multicentre, retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery between January 2016 and January 2020 at six tertiary Spanish hospitals.
resultsA total of 787 patients were included. Two years post surgery, gastrointestinal evaluation was performed in 86% of patients. However, bowel movements per day were only recorded in 242 patients (46.4%), and the values of the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) questionnaire were recorded in 106 patients (20.3%); 146 patients received a diagnosis of fecal incontinence (28.2%), while 124 patients were diagnosed with low anterior resection syndrome (23.8%). Urogenital evaluation was recorded in 21.1% of patients. Thirty-seven patients (5.1%) were detected to have urinary dysfunction, while 40 patients (5.5%) were detected to have sexual dysfunction. A total of 320 patients (43.9%) had their quality of life evaluated 2 years after surgery, and only 0.8% completed the Quality of Life questionnaire. Medication was the most used treatment for sequelae (26.9%) followed by referral to other specialists (15.1%).
conclusionsThere is a significant deficit in clinical follow-ups regarding the functional assessment of patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery. It is crucial to implement a postoperative functional follow-up protocol and to utilize technologies such as Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) to enhance the evaluation and treatment of these sequelae, thereby ensuring an improved quality of life for 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.