BACKGROUND: Bladder and sexual dysfunction are well-documented complications of rectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to determine whether laparoscopy can improve the outcome of these dysfunctions or not. METHODS: The study included 63 of the 116 patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer between 2002 and 2006. Bladder and male sexual function were studied by means of a questionnaire on the basis of the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). In addition, bladder function was determined by means of postvoid residual urine measurement and uroflowmetry. Postoperative functions were compared with the preoperative data to detect subjective functional deterioration. Outcomes were compared between patients who underwent open (group 1, n = 29) and laparoscopic (group 2, n = 34) total mesorectal excision. RESULTS: Only minor disturbances of bladder function were reported for one patient (3%) in group 1 and three patients (9%) in group 2 (p > 0.05). Impotency after surgery was experienced by 6 of 17 preoperatively sexually active males (29%) in group 1 and 1 of 18 males (5%) in group 2 (p = 0.04). Similarly, 5 of 10 women (50 %) in group 1 and 1 of 14 women (7%) in group 2 felt that their overall level of sexual function had decreased as a result of surgery (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Open rectal cancer resection is associated with a higher rate of sexual dysfunction, but not bladder dysfunction, compared with laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery offers a significant advantage with regard to preservation of postoperative sexual function and constitutes a true advance in rectal cancer surgery compared with the open technique. The proposed advantages can be attributed to improvement in visibility by the magnification feature of laparoscopic surgery.
BACKGROUND: Bladder and sexual dysfunction are well-documented complications of rectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to determine whether laparoscopy can improve the outcome of these dysfunctions or not. METHODS: The study included 63 of the 116 patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer between 2002 and 2006. Bladder and male sexual function were studied by means of a questionnaire on the basis of the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). In addition, bladder function was determined by means of postvoid residual urine measurement and uroflowmetry. Postoperative functions were compared with the preoperative data to detect subjective functional deterioration. Outcomes were compared between patients who underwent open (group 1, n = 29) and laparoscopic (group 2, n = 34) total mesorectal excision. RESULTS: Only minor disturbances of bladder function were reported for one patient (3%) in group 1 and three patients (9%) in group 2 (p > 0.05). Impotency after surgery was experienced by 6 of 17 preoperatively sexually active males (29%) in group 1 and 1 of 18 males (5%) in group 2 (p = 0.04). Similarly, 5 of 10 women (50 %) in group 1 and 1 of 14 women (7%) in group 2 felt that their overall level of sexual function had decreased as a result of surgery (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Open rectal cancer resection is associated with a higher rate of sexual dysfunction, but not bladder dysfunction, compared with laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery offers a significant advantage with regard to preservation of postoperative sexual function and constitutes a true advance in rectal cancer surgery compared with the open technique. The proposed advantages can be attributed to improvement in visibility by the magnification feature of laparoscopic surgery.
Authors: Nam Kyu Kim; Tae Wan Aahn; Jea Kun Park; Kang Young Lee; Woong Hee Lee; Seung Kook Sohn; Jin Sik Min Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Corrie A M Marijnen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Hein Putter; Mandy van den Brink; Cornelis P Maas; Hendrik Martijn; Harm J Rutten; Theo Wiggers; Elma Klein Kranenbarg; Jan-Willem H Leer; Anne M Stiggelbout Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544