Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low anterior resection syndrome has a significant impact on the quality of life in rectal cancer survivors. Previous studies comparing laparoscopic to open rectal resection have neglected bowel function outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether there is a difference in the functional outcome between patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open resection for rectal adenocarcinoma.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional prevalence of low anterior resection syndrome was assessed in a secondary analysis of the multicenter phase 3 randomized clinical trial, Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ACTRN12609000663257).
SETTING: There were 7 study subsites across New Zealand and Australia.
PATIENTS: Participants were adults with rectal cancer who underwent anterior resection and had bowel continuity.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative bowel function was evaluated using the validated low anterior resection syndrome score and Bowel Function Instrument.
RESULTS: The Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial randomized 475 patients with T1-T3 rectal adenocarcinoma less than 15 cm from the anal verge. A total of 257 participants were eligible for, and invited to, participate in additional follow-up; 163 (63%) completed functional follow-up. Overall cross-sectional prevalence of major low anterior resection syndrome was 49% (minor low anterior resection syndrome 27%). There were no differences in median overall Bowel Function Instrument score nor low anterior resection syndrome score between participants undergoing laparoscopic versus open surgery (66 vs 67, p = 0.52; 31 vs 27, p = 0.24) at a median follow-up of 69 months.
LIMITATIONS: The major limitations are a result of conducting a secondary analysis; the likelihood of an insufficient sample size to detect a difference in prevalence between the groups and the possibility of selection bias as a subset of the randomized population was analyzed.
CONCLUSIONS: Bowel dysfunction affects a majority of rectal cancer patients for a significant time after the operation. In this secondary analysis of a randomized trial, surgical approach does not appear to influence the likelihood or severity of low anterior resection syndrome.