Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc ; 61(2): 133-139, 2023 Mar 01.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37200516

ABSTRACT

Background: Rectal cancer (RC) is the 3rd most frequent one in Mexico. Protective stoma in resection and anastomosis is controversial. Objective: To compare quality of life (QoL), functional capacity (FC) and complications in rectal cancer (RC) patients with low and ultralow anterior resection (LAR and ULAR) with loop transverse colostomy (LTC) versus protective ileostomy (IP). Material and methods: Comparative, observational study in patients with RC and LTC (Group 1) or IP (Group 2) from 2018-2021. FC pre and postoperative, complications, hospital readmission (HR) and assessment by other specialty (AS) were assessed; QoL was assessed with EQ-5D by telephone. Student-t test, Chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney-U test were used. Results: Group 1: 12 patients: mean preoperative FC: ECOG 0.83, Karnofsky 91.66%; postoperative: ECOG 1, Karnofsky 89.17%. Mean postoperative QoL: index value 0.76 and health status 82.5%; HR: 25%; AS: 42%. Group 2: 10 patients: mean preoperative FC: ECOG 0.80, Karnofsky 90%; postoperative: ECOG 1.5, Karnofsky 84%. Mean postoperative QoL: index value 0.68 and health status 74%; HR: 50%; AS: 80%. Complications: 100% of sample. Conclusion: The differences in QoL, FC and complications between LTC and IP in RC patients operated with LAR/ULAR were not significant.


Introducción: el cáncer rectal (CR) es el tercero más frecuente en México. El estoma de protección en la resección y anastomosis es controversial. Objetivo: comparar calidad de vida (CV), capacidad funcional (CF) y complicaciones (COMP) en pacientes con CR con resección anterior baja (RAB) y ultrabaja (RAUB) con colostomía de transverso en asa (CTA) frente a ileostomía de protección (IP). Material y métodos: estudio comparativo, observacional, en pacientes con CR con CTA (Grupo 1) o IP (Grupo 2) atendidos en 2018-2021. Se evaluó CF (escalas ECOG y Karnofsky) pre y posquirúrgicas, COMP, reingreso hospitalario (RH) y valoración por otra especialidad (VE). Se evaluó CV con la encuesta EQ-5D vía telefónica. Se utilizó t de Student, Chi cuadrada y U de Mann-Whitney. Resultados: grupo1: 12 pacientes; CF media prequirúrgica ECOG: 0.83, Karnofsky: 91.66%; posquirúrgica ECOG: 1, Karnofsky: 89.17%. CV posquirúrgica medias valor índice: 0.76 y estado funcional: 82.5%; RH: 25%, VE: 42%. Grupo 2: 10 pacientes; CF media prequirúrgica ECOG: 0.80, Karnofsky: 90%; CF media postquirúrgica ECOG: 1.5, Karnofsky: 84%; CV medias valor índice: 0.68, estado funcional: 74%; RH: 50%, VE: 80%. COMP: 100% de la muestra. Conclusiones: las diferencias en CV, CF y COMP entre CTA e IP en pacientes con CR con RAB/RAUB no fueron significativas.


Subject(s)
Colostomy , Rectal Neoplasms , Humans , Colostomy/adverse effects , Ileostomy/adverse effects , Quality of Life , Rectal Neoplasms/surgery , Rectal Neoplasms/complications , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Anastomosis, Surgical/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...