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":"[直肠癌手术中保护性结肠造口与回肠造口的比较]。","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":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rectal cancer (RC) is the 3rd most frequent one in Mexico. Protective stoma in resection and anastomosis is controversial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The differences in QoL, FC and complications between LTC and IP in RC patients operated with LAR/ULAR were not significant.</p>","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":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rectal cancer (RC) is the 3rd most frequent one in Mexico. Protective stoma in resection and anastomosis is controversial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The differences in QoL, FC and complications between LTC and IP in RC patients operated with LAR/ULAR were not significant.</p>\",\"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}","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}
[Comparison of protective colostomy vs. ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery].
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.
![[Comparison of protective colostomy vs. ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery].](https://img.booksci.cn/booksciimg/2023-3/2023112878253684057185746264936.jpg)
![[Comparison of protective colostomy vs. ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery].](https://img.booksci.cn/booksciimg/2023-3/2023112878261578755541451346541.jpg)
![[Comparison of protective colostomy vs. ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery].](https://img.booksci.cn/booksciimg/2023-3/2023112878266383786696759917290.jpg)
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
