OBJECTIVE: For low-lying rectal cancers, proximal diversion can reduce anastomotic leak after sphincter-preserving surgery; however, evidence suggests that such temporary diversions are often not reversed. We aimed to evaluate nonreversal and delayed stoma reversal in elderly patients undergoing low anterior resection (LAR). DESIGN: SEER-Medicare-linked analysis from 1991-2007. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1179 primary stage I-III rectal cancer patients over age 66 who underwent LAR with synchronous diverting stoma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Stoma creation and reversal rates; (2) time to reversal; (3) characteristics associated with reversal and shorter time to reversal. RESULTS: Within 18 mo of LAR, 51% of patients (603/1179) underwent stoma reversal. Stoma reversal was associated with age <80 y (P < 0.0001), male sex (P = 0.018), fewer comorbidities (P = 0.017), higher income (quartile 4 versus 1; P = 0.002), early tumor stage (1 versus 3; P < 0.001), neoadjuvant radiation (P < 0.0001), rectal tumor location (versus rectosigmoid; P = 0.001), more recent diagnosis (P = 0.021), and shorter length of stay on LAR admission (P = 0.021). Median time to reversal was 126 d (interquartile range: 79-249). Longer time to reversal was associated with older age (P = 0.031), presence of comorbidities (P = 0.014), more advanced tumor stage (P = 0.007), positive lymph nodes (P = 0.009), receipt of adjuvant radiation therapy (P = 0.008), more recent diagnosis (P = 0.004), and longer length of stay on LAR admission (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Half of elderly rectal cancer patients who undergo LAR with temporary stoma have not undergone stoma reversal by 18 mo. Identifiable risk factors predict both nonreversal and longer time to reversal. These results help inform preoperative discussions and promote realistic expectations for elderly rectal cancer patients.
OBJECTIVE: For low-lying rectal cancers, proximal diversion can reduce anastomotic leak after sphincter-preserving surgery; however, evidence suggests that such temporary diversions are often not reversed. We aimed to evaluate nonreversal and delayed stoma reversal in elderly patients undergoing low anterior resection (LAR). DESIGN: SEER-Medicare-linked analysis from 1991-2007. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1179 primary stage I-III rectal cancerpatients over age 66 who underwent LAR with synchronous diverting stoma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Stoma creation and reversal rates; (2) time to reversal; (3) characteristics associated with reversal and shorter time to reversal. RESULTS: Within 18 mo of LAR, 51% of patients (603/1179) underwent stoma reversal. Stoma reversal was associated with age <80 y (P < 0.0001), male sex (P = 0.018), fewer comorbidities (P = 0.017), higher income (quartile 4 versus 1; P = 0.002), early tumor stage (1 versus 3; P < 0.001), neoadjuvant radiation (P < 0.0001), rectal tumor location (versus rectosigmoid; P = 0.001), more recent diagnosis (P = 0.021), and shorter length of stay on LAR admission (P = 0.021). Median time to reversal was 126 d (interquartile range: 79-249). Longer time to reversal was associated with older age (P = 0.031), presence of comorbidities (P = 0.014), more advanced tumor stage (P = 0.007), positive lymph nodes (P = 0.009), receipt of adjuvant radiation therapy (P = 0.008), more recent diagnosis (P = 0.004), and longer length of stay on LAR admission (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Half of elderly rectal cancerpatients who undergo LAR with temporary stoma have not undergone stoma reversal by 18 mo. Identifiable risk factors predict both nonreversal and longer time to reversal. These results help inform preoperative discussions and promote realistic expectations for elderly rectal cancerpatients.
Authors: A J Hartz; H Krakauer; E M Kuhn; M Young; S J Jacobsen; G Gay; L Muenz; M Katzoff; R C Bailey; A A Rimm Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1989-12-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Norbert Hüser; Christoph W Michalski; Mert Erkan; Tibor Schuster; Robert Rosenberg; Jörg Kleeff; Helmut Friess Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: F Rondelli; P Reboldi; A Rulli; F Barberini; A Guerrisi; L Izzo; A Bolognese; P Covarelli; C Boselli; C Becattini; G Noya Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2009-02-12 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Jeffrey H Silber; Paul R Rosenbaum; Patrick S Romano; Amy K Rosen; Yanli Wang; Yun Teng; Michael J Halenar; Orit Even-Shoshan; Kevin G Volpp Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2009-02
Authors: Christopher M Dodgion; Bridget A Neville; Stuart R Lipsitz; Deborah Schrag; Elizabeth Breen; Michael J Zinner; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2014-03-22 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Drew J Gunnells; Lauren N Wood; Lauren Goss; Melanie S Morris; Gregory D Kennedy; Jamie A Cannon; Daniel I Chu Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Fateme Rajabiyazdi; Marylise Boutros; Natasha G Caminsky; Jeongyoon Moon; Nancy Morin; Karim Alavi; Rebecca C Auer; Liliana G Bordeianou; Sami A Chadi; Sébastien Drolet; Amandeep Ghuman; Alexander Sender Liberman; Tony MacLean; Ian M Paquette; Jason Park; Sunil Patel; Scott R Steele; Patricia Sylla; Steven D Wexner; Carol-Ann Vasilevsky Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Trista D Reid; Riju Shrestha; Lucas Stone; Jared Gallaher; Anthony G Charles; Paula D Strassle Journal: Surgery Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 4.348
Authors: Marcin Zeman; Marek Czarnecki; Andrzej Chmielarz; Adam Idasiak; Maciej Grajek; Agnieszka Czarniecka Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 2.754