[Comparison of protective colostomy vs. ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery].

Revista médica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social Pub Date : 2023-03-01

José Manuel Carlos Segura-González, Iris Isamar Tiscareño-Lozano, Arturo García-Galicia, Samantha Isabel Hernández-Muñoz, María Guadalupe Vera-Sánchez, Alejandra Nayelhi Maza-Cruz, Álvaro José Montiel-Jarquín, Ingrid Jiménez-Luna

{"title":"[Comparison of protective colostomy vs. ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery].","authors":"José Manuel Carlos Segura-González, Iris Isamar Tiscareño-Lozano, Arturo García-Galicia, Samantha Isabel Hernández-Muñoz, María Guadalupe Vera-Sánchez, Alejandra Nayelhi Maza-Cruz, Álvaro José Montiel-Jarquín, Ingrid Jiménez-Luna","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Rectal cancer (RC) is the 3rd most frequent one in Mexico. Protective stoma in resection and anastomosis is controversial.Objective: To compare quality of life (QoL), functional capacity (FC) and complications in rectal cancer (RC) patients with low and ultralow anterior resection (LAR and ULAR) with loop transverse colostomy (LTC) versus protective ileostomy (IP).Material and methods: Comparative, observational study in patients with RC and LTC (Group 1) or IP (Group 2) from 2018-2021. FC pre and postoperative, complications, hospital readmission (HR) and assessment by other specialty (AS) were assessed; QoL was assessed with EQ-5D by telephone. Student-t test, Chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney-U test were used.Results: Group 1: 12 patients: mean preoperative FC: ECOG 0.83, Karnofsky 91.66%; postoperative: ECOG 1, Karnofsky 89.17%. Mean postoperative QoL: index value 0.76 and health status 82.5%; HR: 25%; AS: 42%. Group 2: 10 patients: mean preoperative FC: ECOG 0.80, Karnofsky 90%; postoperative: ECOG 1.5, Karnofsky 84%. Mean postoperative QoL: index value 0.68 and health status 74%; HR: 50%; AS: 80%. Complications: 100% of sample.Conclusion: The differences in QoL, FC and complications between LTC and IP in RC patients operated with LAR/ULAR were not significant.","PeriodicalId":21419,"journal":{"name":"Revista médica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social","volume":"61 2","pages":"133-139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3a/d2/04435117-61-2-133.PMC10396053.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista médica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Rectal cancer (RC) is the 3rd most frequent one in Mexico. Protective stoma in resection and anastomosis is controversial.

Objective: To compare quality of life (QoL), functional capacity (FC) and complications in rectal cancer (RC) patients with low and ultralow anterior resection (LAR and ULAR) with loop transverse colostomy (LTC) versus protective ileostomy (IP).

Material and methods: Comparative, observational study in patients with RC and LTC (Group 1) or IP (Group 2) from 2018-2021. FC pre and postoperative, complications, hospital readmission (HR) and assessment by other specialty (AS) were assessed; QoL was assessed with EQ-5D by telephone. Student-t test, Chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney-U test were used.

Results: Group 1: 12 patients: mean preoperative FC: ECOG 0.83, Karnofsky 91.66%; postoperative: ECOG 1, Karnofsky 89.17%. Mean postoperative QoL: index value 0.76 and health status 82.5%; HR: 25%; AS: 42%. Group 2: 10 patients: mean preoperative FC: ECOG 0.80, Karnofsky 90%; postoperative: ECOG 1.5, Karnofsky 84%. Mean postoperative QoL: index value 0.68 and health status 74%; HR: 50%; AS: 80%. Complications: 100% of sample.

Conclusion: The differences in QoL, FC and complications between LTC and IP in RC patients operated with LAR/ULAR were not significant.

Abstract Image

本刊更多论文

[直肠癌手术中保护性结肠造口与回肠造口的比较]。

背景:直肠癌(RC)是墨西哥第三常见的癌症。保护性造口在切除和吻合方面存在争议。目的:比较直肠癌(RC)低位和超低低位前切除术(LAR和ULAR)联合环形横结肠造口术(LTC)与保护性回肠造口术(IP)患者的生活质量(QoL)、功能容量(FC)和并发症。材料和方法:对2018-2021年RC和LTC(1组)或IP(2组)患者进行比较观察性研究。评估FC术前、术后、并发症、再入院(HR)和其他专科评估(AS);QoL采用EQ-5D电话评估。采用Student-t检验、卡方检验、Mann-Whitney-U检验。结果:第一组12例患者:平均术前FC: ECOG 0.83, Karnofsky 91.66%;术后:ECOG 1, Karnofsky 89.17%。术后平均生活质量:指数值0.76，健康状况82.5%;人力资源:25%;为:42%。第二组10例:术前平均FC: ECOG 0.80, Karnofsky 90%;术后:ECOG 1.5, Karnofsky 84%。术后平均生活质量:指数值0.68，健康状况74%;人力资源:50%;为:80%。并发症:100%样品。结论:RC患者行LAR/ULAR手术后，LTC与IP的生活质量、FC及并发症差异无统计学意义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Revista médica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

自引率

0.00%

发文量