Reconstructive Techniques After Rectal Resection for Rectal Cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal resection (TME) has led to improved survival and reduced local recurrence in patients with rectal cancer. Straight coloanal anastomosis after TME can lead to problems with frequent bowel movements, fecal urgency and incontinence. The colonic J pouch, side-to-end anastomosis and transverse coloplasty have been developed as alternative surgical strategies in order to improve bowel function. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to determine which rectal reconstructive technique results in the best postoperative bowel function. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search of the literature (MEDLINE, Cancerlit, Embase and Cochrane Databases) was conducted from inception to Feb 14, 2006 by two independent investigators. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in which patients with rectal cancer undergoing low rectal resection and coloanal anastomosis were randomized to at least two different anastomotic techniques. Furthermore, a measure of postoperative bowel function was necessary for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies identified for potential inclusion were independently assessed for eligibility by at least two reviewers. Data from included trials was collected using a standardized data collection form. Data was collated and qualitatively summarized for bowel function outcomes and meta-analysis statistical techniques were used to pool data on postoperative complications. MAIN RESULTS: Of 2609 relevant studies, 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met our inclusion criteria. Nine RCTs (n=473) compared straight coloanal anastomosis (SCA) to the colonic J pouch (CJP). Up to 18 months postoperatively, the CJP was superior to SCA in most studies in bowel frequency, urgency, fecal incontinence and use of antidiarrheal medication. There were too few patients with long-term bowel function outcomes to determine if this advantage continued after 18 months postop. Four RCTs (n=215) compared the side-to-end anastomosis (STE) to the CJP. These studies showed no difference in bowel function outcomes between these two techniques. Similarly, three RCTs (n=158) compared transverse coloplasty (TC) to CJP. Similarly, there were no differences in bowel function outcomes in these small studies. Overall, there were no significant differences in postoperative complications with any of the anastomotic strategies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In several randomized controlled trials, the CJP has been shown to be superior to the SCA in bowel function outcomes in patients with rectal cancer for at least 18 months after gastrointestinal continuity is re-established. The TC and STE anastomoses have been shown to have similar bowel function outcomes when compared to the CJP in small randomized controlled trials; further study is necessary to determine the role of these alternative coloanal anastomotic strategies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».