Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Chapman, SJ; Bolton, WS; Corrigan, N; Young, N; Jayne, DG (2017)
Publisher: Springer Verlag
Languages: English
Types: Article
Background: Postoperative bowel dysfunction affects quality of life after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery, but the extent of the problem is not clearly defined due to inconsistent outcome measures used to characterise the condition. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess variation in reporting of postoperative bowel dysfunction and make recommendations for standardisation in future studies. If possible, a quantitative synthesis of bowel dysfunction symptoms was planned. Data Sources: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library were queried between 2004-2015. Study Selection: The studies selected reported at least one component of bowel dysfunction following resection of rectal cancer. Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measures were reporting, measurement and definition of post-operative bowel dysfunction. Results: Of 5428 studies identified, 234 met inclusion criteria. Widely reported components of bowel dysfunction were incontinence to stool (227/234; 97.0%), frequency (168/234; 71.8%) and incontinence to flatus (158/234; 67.5%). Urgency and stool clustering were reported less commonly, with rates of 106/234 (45.3%) and 61/234 (26.1%). Bowel dysfunction measured as a primary outcome was associated with better reporting (OR: 3.49; 95% CI: 1.99–6.23; P<0.001). Less than half of the outcomes were assessed using a dedicated research tool (337/720; 46.8%), with the remaining descriptive measures infrequently defined (56/383; 14.6%). Limitations: Heterogeneity in the reporting, measurement and definition of post-operative bowel dysfunction precluded pooling of results and limited interpretation. Conclusion: Considerable variation exists in the reporting and definition of postoperative bowel dysfunction. These inconsistencies preclude reliable estimates of incidence and meta-analysis. A recently validated scoring tool for postoperative bowel dysfunction, the LARS score, should be endorsed for future studies.
  • No references.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article