Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

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

Bretagnol, Frédéric, Rullier, Eric, Laurent, Christophe, Zerbib, Frank, Gontier, Renaud, Saric, Jean·2004·Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10350-004-0523-1

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 191

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.