ObjectiveThe low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score is a simple and visual instrument assessing sphincter preserving surgery for low rectal cancer. The purpose of this study is to analyze the feasibility of using LARS score to assess the function after intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. MethodsBetween March 2013 and June 2015, 76 patients underwent sphincter preserving surgery for low rectal cancer, 23 cases underwent intersphincteric resection set as ISR group, the other 53 cases received low anterior resection set as LAR group. LARS score, Saito function questionnaire, Wexner score, and European organization for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) quality of life questionnaire core 30 (QLQ-C30), questionnaire module for colorectal cancer (QLQ-CR29) were compared for the two groups. ResultsThere were 63.2 percent patients (48/76) appeared major LARS, 27.6 percent (21/76) minor LARS and 9.2 percent (7/76) no LARS, there were no statistically difference between the ISR and LAR groups (P=0.727), but the item of incontinence due to liquid stools appeared more obvious in ISR group (P=0.009). The items of faecel incontinence and sore skin for EORTC QLQ-CR29 were serious in ISR group (P < 0.05), the other item of EORTC QLQ-CR29 and EORTC QLQ-C30, Saito function questionnaire, Wexner score were similar between the two groups (all P > 0.05). ConclusionThe anal function after intersphincteric resection is non-inferior to the low anterior resection for low rectal cancer, but both can appear serious low anterior resection syndrome.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the risk prediction models for the occurrence of low anterior resection syndrome in patients with rectal cancer after surgery. MethodsThe PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINHAL, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect studies related to the objectives from inception to June 13, 2023. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data using the critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies (CHARMS) checklist, and assessed quality of the included studies using prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). ResultsA total of 14 studies were included, all studies reported model discrimination, and 10 studies reported calibration. The models were internally validated in 8 studies, externally validated in 5 studies. The most common predictors included in the models were tumour distance from the anal verge, neoadjuvant therapy, anastomotic leak and BMI. Only 5 studies had good overall applicability, and all studies had a high risk of bias, with the risk of bias mainly stemming from the field of participants, outcomes and analysis. ConclusionThere are still many shortcomings in the risk prediction models for the occurrence of low anterior resection syndrome in patients with rectal cancer after surgery. Future studies may consider external validation and recalibration of existing models. New prediction models should be built and validated according to methodological guidelines.