RESUMO
Background After anterior resection (AR), one of the most debilitating complications is low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) seen in about 64% of patients. The severity of the LARS score was significantly correlated with neoadjuvant treatment, the extent of rectal surgery, complication by the anastomotic leak, female gender, and age < 64 years. In this study, we analyzed the impact of various clinical factors on LARS and also the various domains of quality of life (QoL). Purpose To assess the incidence of LARS in patients undergoing sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer after the patient starts long-term defecating per anus, change in the QoL, and relation to LARS and factors affecting it. Methods One year before, 72 patients who had undergone AR in the Regional Cancer Centre were interviewed by a trained interviewer and data was collected from the file. The questionnaires used were the Wexner Incontinence score, LARS Malayalam Questionnaire, and European Organisation For Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30 Malayalam translations. Statistical measures The LARS score was used to categorize patients into three grades. The scores were compared with clinical and social factors using the χ2 test for association. Continuous variables were compared by the Spearman Rho test. Results Details of patients were studied (male: 55.6% (40) and female: 44.4% (32)). Fifty patients underwent low anterior resection (LAR). The mean LARS score was 25.61, with 47.2% of patients having severe LARS score. The mean Wexner score was 6.84. The relation with type of surgery, approach (laparoscopic vs open), or type of neoadjuvant therapy was not found to be significant. A higher LARS score did not impact overall QoL as assessed by FACT-C. Insomnia and diarrhea symptoms scores were significantly worsened. The pain score was worse for those undergoing stapler anastomosis. Wexner's score was worse for those who had received adjuvant chemotherapy. Role functioning score was better for AR compared to low anterior resection (LAR). Only distance from the anal verge was found to be a significant cause of LARS and was negatively correlated. Discussion LARS of severe degrees were seen in most patients. No modifiable risk factors were significantly found to affect the chance of LARS. However, LARS did not have a significant impact on QoL, neither did the type of surgery. So sphincter preservation can be offered to the patients, but all patients undergoing LAR should be counseled well about the risk of LARS before surgery.
RESUMO
AIMS: Sevoflurane is an ether-based inhalational anaesthetic that induces and maintains general anaesthesia. Our study aimed to detect sevoflurane-induced nephrogenic diabetes insipidus using data mining algorithms (DMAs) and molecular docking. The FAERS database was analysed using OpenVigil 2.1 for disproportionality analysis. METHODS: We analysed FAERS data from 2004 to 2022 to determine the incidence of nephrogenic diabetes insipidus associated with sevoflurane. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) and proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. We also used molecular docking with AutoDock Vina to examine sevoflurane's binding affinity to relevant receptors. RESULTS: A total of 554 nephrogenic diabetes insipidus cases were reported in FAERS, of which 2.5% (14 cases) were associated with sevoflurane. Positive signals were observed for sevoflurane with ROR of 76.012 (95% CI: 44.67-129.35) and PRR of 75.72 (χ2 : 934.688). Of the 14 cases, 50% required hospitalization, 14% resulted in death, and the remaining cases were categorized as other outcomes. Molecular docking analysis showed that sevoflurane exhibited high binding affinity towards AQP2 (4NEF) and AVPR2 (6U1N) with docking scores of -4.9 and -5.3, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Sevoflurane use is significantly associated with the incidence of nephrogenic diabetes insipidus. Healthcare professionals should be cautious when using this medication and report any adverse events to regulatory agencies. Further research is needed to validate these findings and identify risk factors while performing statistical adjustments to prevent false-positives. Clinical monitoring is crucial to validate potential adverse effects of sevoflurane.
