Cited by 42Endometriosis Research and TreatmentColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsPelvic floor disorders treatments

Low anterior resection syndrome following different surgical approaches for low rectal endometriosis: A retrospective multicenter study

Open access
Bokor, Attila, Hudelist, Gernot, Dobó, Noémi, Dauser, Bernhard, Farella, Marilena, Brubel, Réka, Tuech, Jean‐Jacques, Roman, Horace·2021·Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Abstract

Introduction: There is increasing evidence that intermediate and long‐term bowel dysfunction may occur as a consequence of radical surgery for rectal deep endometriosis (DE). Typical symptoms include constipation, feeling of incomplete evacuation, clustering of stools, and urgency. This is described in the colorectal surgical literature as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Within this, several studies suggested that differences regarding functional outcomes could be favorable to more conservative surgical approaches, that is, excision of endometriotic tissue with preservation of the luminal structure of the rectal wall when compared with classical segmental resection techniques for DE, especially when performed for low DE. Material and methods: A total of 211 patients undergoing rectal surgery for low DE (≤7 cm from the anal verge) in three different tertiary referral centers between October 2009 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed regarding major complications and LARS. From the 211 eligible patients, six women were excluded because of loss to follow‐up. Finally, a total number of 205 patients were enrolled for the statistical analysis; 139 with nerve‐ and vessel‐sparing segmental resection (NVSSR) and 66 operated for laparoscopic‐transanal disk excision (LTADE) were included. Gastrointestinal functional outcomes of the two procedures were compared using the validated LARS questionnaire. The median follow‐up time was 46 ± 11 months. As a secondary outcome, the surgical sequelae were examined. Results: We found no statistically significant difference between the incidence of LARS (31.7% and 37.9%, respectively) among patients operated by LTADE when compared with NVSSR (P = .4). The occurrence of LARS was positively associated with the use of protective ileostomy or colostomy (P = .02). A higher rate of severe complications was observed in women undergoing LTADE (19.7%) when compared with patients with NVSSR (9.0%, P = .029). Conclusions: LARS is not more frequent after NVSSR when compared with a more conservative approach such as LTADE in patients undergoing rectal surgery for low DE. To confirm our findings prospective studies are required.

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 · 10.1111/aogs.14046

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Croese AD, Lonie JM, Trollope AF, Vangaveti VN, Ho Y-H. A me- ta-analysis of the prevalence of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome and systematic review of risk factors. Int J Surg. 2018;56:234-241.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bokor, A., Hudelist, G., Dobó, N., Dauser, B., Farella, M., Brubel, R., Tuech, J., & Roman, H.
Affiliations
  • Semmelweis University (HU)
  • Hospital of the Brothers of St. John of God (AT)
  • Endometriosis Center Clinique Tivoli‐Ducos Bordeaux France
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rouen (FR)
Corresponding author
Bokor, Attila
Venue
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-12-19
Volume
100
Issue
5
Pages
860-867
ISSN
  • 0001-6349 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0412
OpenAlex
W3100214579
Cited by
42
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 4
FWCI
4.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
Keywords
low anterior resection syndrome, bowel dysfunction, postoperative complications, protective ileostomy, colostomy
MeSH terms
Adult, Endometriosis, Female, Humans, Postoperative Complications, Rectal Diseases, Retrospective Studies, Digestive System Surgical Procedures, Syndrome, Tertiary Care Centers

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