Search

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of early stoma closure on bowel function after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer. Methods: Patients participating in the FORCE trial who underwent LAR with protective stoma were included in this study. Patients were subdivided into an early closure group (< 3 months) and late closure group (> 3 months). Endpoints of this study were the Wexner Incontinence, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), EORTC QLQ-CR29, and fecal incontinence quality of life (FIQL) scores at 1 year. Results: Between 2017 and 2020, 38 patients had received a diverting stoma after LAR for rectal cancer and could be included. There was no significant difference in LARS (31 vs. 30, p = 0.63) and Wexner score (6.2 vs. 5.8, p = 0.77) between the early and late closure groups. Time to stoma closure in days was not a predictor for LARS (R2 = 0.001, F (1,36) = 0.049, p = 0.83) or Wexner score (R2 = 0.008, F (1,36) = 0.287, p = 0.60) after restored continuity. There was no significant difference between any of the FIQL domains of lifestyle, coping, depression, and embarrassment. In the EORTC QLQ-29, body image scored higher in the late closure group (21.3 vs. 1.6, p = 0.004). Conclusion: Timing of stoma closure does not appear to affect long-term bowel function and quality of life, except for body image. To improve functional outcome, attention should be focused on other contributing factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation (PFR) is effective in a selection of patients with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after rectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to identify barriers and enablers to prepare for successful implementation into clinical practice. Methods: A qualitative study was performed, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Individual interviews (n = 27) and two focus groups were conducted to synthesize the perspectives of rectal cancer patients, pelvic floor (PF) physiotherapists, and medical experts. Results: Barriers were found to be the absence of guidelines about LARS treatment, underdeveloped network care, suboptimal patient information, and expectation management upfront to PFR. Financial status is frequently a barrier because insurance companies do not always reimburse PFR. Enablers were the current level of evidence for PFR, the positive relationship between patients and PF physiotherapists, and the level of self-motivation by patients. Conclusion: The factors identified in our study play a crucial role in ensuring a successful implementation of PFR after rectal cancer surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]