International trends in surgical treatment of rectal cancer

被引:40
作者
Augestad, Knut M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Lindsetmo, Rolv-Ole [1 ,2 ]
Reynolds, Harry [1 ]
Stulberg, Jonah [1 ]
Senagore, Anthony [4 ]
Champagne, Brad [1 ]
Heriot, Alexander G. [5 ]
Leblanc, Fabien [6 ]
Delaney, Conor P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Case Med Ctr, Div Colorectal Surg, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[2] Univ Tromso Hosp, Dept Digest Surg, N-9012 Tromso, Norway
[3] Univ Tromso Hosp, Dept Telemed & Integrated Care, N-9012 Tromso, Norway
[4] Michigan State Univ, Dept Surg, Grand Rapids, MI USA
[5] Peter MacCallum Canc Ctr, Div Surg Oncol, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[6] Univ Hosp Bordeaux, Dept Digest Surg, Bordeaux, France
关键词
Rectal cancer; Surgical treatment; Rectum anatomy; International practice; International Rectal Cancer Study Group; METAANALYSIS; MANAGEMENT; EXCISION;
D O I
10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.08.030
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
BACKGROUND: Surgical technique might influence rectal cancer survival, yet international practices for surgical treatment of rectal cancer are poorly described. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey in a cohort of experienced colorectal surgeons representing 123 centers. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent responded, 70% are from departments performing more than 50 proctectomies annually. More than 50% defined the rectum as "15 cm from the verge." Seventy-two percent perform laparoscopic proctectomy, 80% use oral bowel preparation, 69% perform high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery, 76% divert stomas as routine for cob-anal anastomosis, and 63% use enhanced recovery protocols. Different practices exist between US and non-US surgeons: 15 cm from the verge to define the rectum (34% vs 59%; P = .03), personally perform laparoscopic resection (82% vs 66%; P = .05), rectal stump washout (36% vs 73%; P = .0001), always drain after surgery (23% vs 42%; P = .03), transanal endoscopic microsurgery for T2NO in medically unfit patients (39% vs 61%; P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Wide international variations in rectal cancer management make outcome comparisons challenging, and consensus development should be encouraged. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:353 / 358
页数:6
相关论文
共 13 条
[11]   Colon and rectal anastomoses do not require routine drainage - A systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Urbach, DR ;
Kennedy, ED ;
Cohen, MM .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 1999, 229 (02) :174-180
[12]   Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Management: 2nd European Rectal Cancer Consensus Conference (EURECA-CC2) [J].
Valentini, Vincenzo ;
Aristei, Cynthia ;
Glimelius, Bengt ;
Minsky, Bruce D. ;
Beets-Tan, Regina ;
Borras, Jose M. ;
Haustermans, Karin ;
Maingon, Philippe ;
Overgaard, Jens ;
Pahlman, Lars ;
Quirke, Phil ;
Schmoll, Hans Joachim ;
Sebag-Montefiore, David ;
Taylor, Irving ;
Van Cutsem, Eric ;
Van de Velde, Cornelius ;
Cellini, Numa ;
Latini, Paolo .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2009, 92 (02) :148-163
[13]   Management of patients with colorectal cancer - Do Australian surgeons know the scientific evidence? [J].
Ward, JE ;
Gattellari, M ;
Solomon, MJ .
ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2002, 137 (12) :1389-1394