ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare functional results and quality of life (QoL) of two salvage techniques: coloanal anastomosis (CAA) or perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection for very low rectal cancer. METHODS: Between 1991 and 2001, 50 patients were operated for a very low rectal adenocarcinoma and analyzed after a follow-up greater than one year and because there was no relapse or no treatment, they were included in the analysis. Thirty-eight patients had a CAA, including: straight anastomosis (n=23), J pouch (n=10), coloplasty (n=2) and intersphincteric resection (n=3). Twelve patients underwent a PC. RESULTS: Vaizey's incontinence score was equivalent for the two groups: CAA 12 (0-22) versus PC 11 (8-13). The only differences were more frequent fractioned stools for the CAA group and increased pad soiling for the PC group. Overall QoL scores (QLQ C-30) were equivalent for CAA and PC. CONCLUSIONS: For very low rectal tumors, the choice of surgical technique must be based on oncologic rather than future functional or QoL criteria, because both approaches seem to provide similar results.
