Audrius Dulskas1, Edgaras Smolskas2, Inga Kildusiene2, Narimantas E Samalavicius3,4. 1. Department of Abdominal and General Surgery and Oncology, National Cancer Institute, 1 Santariskiu Str, LT-08406, Vilnius, Lithuania. audrius.dulskas@gmail.com. 2. Department of Abdominal and General Surgery and Oncology, National Cancer Institute, 1 Santariskiu Str, LT-08406, Vilnius, Lithuania. 3. Department of Abdominal and General Surgery and Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Clinic of Internal, Family Medicine and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, 1 Santariskiu Str, LT-08406, Vilnius, Lithuania. 4. Department of Surgery, Klaipeda University Hospital, 41 Liepojos Str, LT-92288, Klaipeda, Lithuania.
Abstract
AIM: Up to 80% of patients after low anterior resection, experience (low) anterior resection syndrome (ARS/LARS). However, there is no standard treatment option currently available. This systemic review aims to summarize treatment possibilities for LARS after surgical treatment of rectal cancer in the medical literature. METHODS: Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library were searched using the terms anterior resection syndrome, low anterior resection, colorectal/rectal/rectum, surgery/operation, pelvic floor rehabilitation, biofeedback, transanal irrigation, sacral nerve stimulation, and tibial nerve stimulation. All English language articles presenting original patient data regarding treatment and outcome of LARS were included. We focused on the effects of different treatment modalities for LARS. The Jadad score was used to assess the methodological quality of trials. The quality scale ranges from 0 to 5 points, with a score ≤ 2 indicating a low quality report, and a score of ≥ 3 indicating a high quality report. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 160 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 8 were reporting sacral nerve stimulation, 6 were designed to determine pelvic floor rehabilitation, 3 studies evaluated the effect of transanal irrigation, 2-percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, and the rest of the studies assessed probiotics and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for LARS in patients who had undergone rectal resection. All except one study were poor quality reports according to the Jadad score. CONCLUSIONS: LARS treatment still carries difficulties because of a lack of well-conducted, randomized multicenter trials. Well-performed randomized controlled trials are needed.
AIM: Up to 80% of patients after low anterior resection, experience (low) anterior resection syndrome (ARS/LARS). However, there is no standard treatment option currently available. This systemic review aims to summarize treatment possibilities for LARS after surgical treatment of rectal cancer in the medical literature. METHODS: Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library were searched using the terms anterior resection syndrome, low anterior resection, colorectal/rectal/rectum, surgery/operation, pelvic floor rehabilitation, biofeedback, transanal irrigation, sacral nerve stimulation, and tibial nerve stimulation. All English language articles presenting original patient data regarding treatment and outcome of LARS were included. We focused on the effects of different treatment modalities for LARS. The Jadad score was used to assess the methodological quality of trials. The quality scale ranges from 0 to 5 points, with a score ≤ 2 indicating a low quality report, and a score of ≥ 3 indicating a high quality report. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 160 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 8 were reporting sacral nerve stimulation, 6 were designed to determine pelvic floor rehabilitation, 3 studies evaluated the effect of transanal irrigation, 2-percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, and the rest of the studies assessed probiotics and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for LARS in patients who had undergone rectal resection. All except one study were poor quality reports according to the Jadad score. CONCLUSIONS:LARS treatment still carries difficulties because of a lack of well-conducted, randomized multicenter trials. Well-performed randomized controlled trials are needed.
Authors: C Chesnel; C Hentzen; R Haddad; A Charlanes; F Le Breton; N Turmel; G Amarenco Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 3.781