TY - JOUR
T1 - International trends in surgical treatment of rectal cancer
AU - Augestad, Knut M.
AU - Lindsetmo, Rolv Ole
AU - Reynolds, Harry
AU - Stulberg, Jonah
AU - Senagore, Anthony
AU - Champagne, Brad
AU - Heriot, Alexander G.
AU - Leblanc, Fabien
AU - Delaney, Conor P.
PY - 2011/3
Y1 - 2011/3
N2 - Background Surgical technique might influence rectal cancer survival, yet international practices for surgical treatment of rectal cancer are poorly described. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey in a cohort of experienced colorectal surgeons representing 123 centers. Results Seventy-one percent responded, 70% are from departments performing more than 50 proctectomies annually. More than 50% defined the rectum as "15 cm from the verge." Seventy-two percent perform laparoscopic proctectomy, 80% use oral bowel preparation, 69% perform high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery, 76% divert stomas as routine for colo-anal anastomosis, and 63% use enhanced recovery protocols. Different practices exist between US and non-US surgeons: 15 cm from the verge to define the rectum (34% vs 59%; P = .03), personally perform laparoscopic resection (82% vs 66%; P = .05), rectal stump washout (36% vs 73%; P = .0001), always drain after surgery (23% vs 42%; P = .03), transanal endoscopic microsurgery for T2N0 in medically unfit patients (39% vs 61%; P = .0001). Conclusions Wide international variations in rectal cancer management make outcome comparisons challenging, and consensus development should be encouraged.
AB - Background Surgical technique might influence rectal cancer survival, yet international practices for surgical treatment of rectal cancer are poorly described. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey in a cohort of experienced colorectal surgeons representing 123 centers. Results Seventy-one percent responded, 70% are from departments performing more than 50 proctectomies annually. More than 50% defined the rectum as "15 cm from the verge." Seventy-two percent perform laparoscopic proctectomy, 80% use oral bowel preparation, 69% perform high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery, 76% divert stomas as routine for colo-anal anastomosis, and 63% use enhanced recovery protocols. Different practices exist between US and non-US surgeons: 15 cm from the verge to define the rectum (34% vs 59%; P = .03), personally perform laparoscopic resection (82% vs 66%; P = .05), rectal stump washout (36% vs 73%; P = .0001), always drain after surgery (23% vs 42%; P = .03), transanal endoscopic microsurgery for T2N0 in medically unfit patients (39% vs 61%; P = .0001). Conclusions Wide international variations in rectal cancer management make outcome comparisons challenging, and consensus development should be encouraged.
KW - International Rectal Cancer Study Group
KW - International practice
KW - Rectal cancer
KW - Rectum anatomy
KW - Surgical treatment
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952141378&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79952141378&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.08.030
DO - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.08.030
M3 - Article
C2 - 21367378
AN - SCOPUS:79952141378
SN - 0002-9610
VL - 201
SP - 353
EP - 358
JO - American Journal of Surgery
JF - American Journal of Surgery
IS - 3
ER -