Literature DB >> 23652741

Impact of obesity on operation performed, complications, and long-term outcomes in terms of restoration of intestinal continuity for patients with mid and low rectal cancer.

Erman Aytac1, Ian C Lavery, Matthew F Kalady, Ravi P Kiran.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The impact of obesity per se on the surgical strategy, ie, sphincter sacrifice (abdominoperineal resection) vs sphincter-preserving resection, outcomes, and long-term maintenance of intestinal continuity has been poorly studied in patients with mid and low rectal cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes and long-term maintenance of intestinal continuity for obese and nonobese patients treated surgically for mid and low rectal cancers.
DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study from a prospectively collected database.
SETTING: The investigation took place in a high-volume specialized colorectal surgery department. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent curative surgery for mid or low rectal adenocarcinoma at a single institution from 1976 to 2011 were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m) and nonobese patients were matched 1:2 for age, sex, ASA class, location, and stage of tumor. Demographics, use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, operative and perioperative outcomes, pathology, long-term outcomes including oncologic outcomes, and whether restoration of intestinal continuity was obtained were compared.
RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven obese patients and 314 nonobese patients were included in the study. The groups were similar for matched characteristics. The use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (p = 0.048) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.0003) rates were higher in obese patients. A similar proportion of nonobese and obese patients underwent sphincter-preserving resection (p > 0.99), and postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.23), 30-day postoperative reoperation (p = 0.83), mortality (p > 0.99), and readmissions (p = 0. 13) were similar. The obese and nonobese groups had similar overall (p = 0.61) and disease-free survival (p = 0.74) at a mean follow-up of 5 years for both groups. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective and nonrandomized nature.
CONCLUSION: At a high-volume specialized colorectal unit, proctectomy can be performed in obese patients with similar long-term oncologic outcomes and ability to restore intestinal continuity in comparison with nonobese patients. Proctectomy in obese patients, however, is associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leak in comparison with nonobese patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23652741     DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182880ffa

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  17 in total

1.  Hand-Assisted versus Straight-Laparoscopic versus Open Proctosigmoidectomy for Treatment of Sigmoid and Rectal Cancer: A Case-Matched Study of 100 Patients.

Authors:  Fazli C Gezen; Erman Aytac; Meagan M Costedio; Jon D Vogel; Emre Gorgun
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2015

2.  Visceral fat area, not body mass index, predicts postoperative 30-day morbidity in patients undergoing colon resection for cancer.

Authors:  Benjamin A Kuritzkes; Emmanouil P Pappou; Ravi P Kiran; Onur Baser; Liqiong Fan; Xiaotao Guo; Binsheng Zhao; Stuart Bentley-Hibbert
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-04-15       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  [Enhanced recovery after preserving the left colonic artery during laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer].

Authors:  Yun-Geng Liu; Lei Zhang; Ji-Ran Huang; Jin-Rong Yi; Chuan-Fa Fang; Lai-Yang Xia; Hong-Quan Liu; Jian-Zhong Yi
Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao       Date:  2017-09-20

4.  Factors affecting sphincter-preserving resection treatment for patients with low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Zhenqiang Sun; Xianbo Yu; Haijiang Wang; Ming Ma; Zeliang Zhao; Qisan Wang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 2.447

Review 5.  Anastomotic Failure in Colorectal Surgery: Where Are We at?

Authors:  Vinna An; Raaj Chandra; Matthew Lawrence
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2018-03-03       Impact factor: 0.656

6.  Effect of BMI on outcomes in proctectomy.

Authors:  Jennifer E Hrabe; Scott K Sherman; Mary E Charlton; John W Cromwell; John C Byrn
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 4.585

7.  Laparoscopic versus open surgery for obese patients with rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Matsuzaki; Soichiro Ishihara; Kazushige Kawai; Koji Murono; Kensuke Otani; Koji Yasuda; Takeshi Nishikawa; Toshiaki Tanaka; Tomomichi Kiyomatsu; Keisuke Hata; Hiroaki Nozawa; Hironori Yamaguchi; Toshiaki Watanabe
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2016-09-27       Impact factor: 2.549

8.  Anus-preserving rectectomy via telescopic colorectal mucosal anastomosis for low rectal cancer: experience from a Chinese cohort.

Authors:  Shi-Yong Li; Gang Chen; Xue Bai; Fu-Yi Zuo; Guang Chen; Jun-Feng Du; Xiao-Jun Wei; Wei Cui
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Quantitative assessment of mesorectal fat: new prognostic biomarker in patients with mid-to-lower rectal cancer.

Authors:  Jiyoung Yoon; Yong Eun Chung; Joon Seok Lim; Myeong-Jin Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Impact of Body Mass Index on Early Postoperative and Long-Term Outcome after Rectal Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Björn Gebauer; Frank Meyer; Henry Ptok; Ralf Steinert; Ronny Otto; Hans Lippert; Ingo Gastinger
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2017-10-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.