The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Functional Results and Quality of Life Between Intersphincteric Resection and Conventional Coloanal Anastomosis for Low Rectal Cancer
Abstract
PURPOSE: The technique of intersphincteric resection permits sphincter preservation with good oncologic results in very low rectal cancer. This study aimed to investigate functional results and quality of life after intersphincteric resection compared with conventional coloanal anastomoses. METHODS: From 1990 to 2000, 170 patients underwent total mesorectal excision with coloanal anastomosis for low rectal tumors. Questionnaires were obtained from 77 patients alive without colostomy: 37 had a conventional coloanal anastomosis and 40 had intersphincteric resection. Both groups were similar according to age, gender, anastomotic stenosis, colonic pouch, anastomotic leakage, preoperative radiotherapy, and follow-up (median, 56 months). Assessment included one functional and two quality-of-life questionnaires: the SF-36 Health Status and the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life score. RESULTS: There was no difference in stool frequency, fragmentation, urgency, dyschesia, and alimentary restriction between patients with and without intersphincteric resection. Patients with intersphincteric resection had significantly worse continence (Wexner score, 10.8 vs. 6.9; P < 0.001) and needed more antidiarrheal drugs (60 vs. 35 percent; P = 0.04) than those without. Compared with conventional coloanal anastomoses, quality of life was altered by intersphincteric resection for the subscale embarrassment ( P < 0.01) in the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life score, whereas no difference of quality of life was observed with SF-36. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional coloanal anastomoses, patients with intersphincteric resection have a higher risk of fecal incontinence and a slightly altered quality of life.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Emmertsen, K. J., & Laurberg, S. (2012) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31824f1c21 · Cited by 1,079
Quality of life after laparoscopic colorectal resection for endometriosis
Dubernard, G., Piketty, M., Rouzier, R., Houry, S., Bazot, M., & Darai, E. (2006) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dei491 · Cited by 272
Battersby, N. J., Bouliotis, G., Emmertsen, K. J., Juul, T., Glynne-Jones, R., Branagan, G., Christensen, P., Laurberg, S., & Moran, B. J. (2018) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312695 · Cited by 245
Metadata
- Authors
- Bretagnol, F., Rullier, E., Laurent, C., Zerbib, F., Gontier, R., & Saric, J.
- Venue
- Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 832-838
- ISSN
- 0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2083078944
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Functional Results and Quality of Life Between Intersphincteric Resection and Conventional Coloanal Anastomosis for Low Rectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10350-004-0523-1
- The paper
- Bretagnol, F., Rullier, E., Laurent, C., Zerbib, F., Gontier, R., & Saric, J. (2004). Comparison of Functional Results and Quality of Life Between Intersphincteric Resection and Conventional Coloanal Anastomosis for Low Rectal Cancer. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-0523-1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.