International trends in surgical treatment of rectal cancer

Knut M. Augestad, Rolv Ole Lindsetmo, Harry Reynolds, Jonah Stulberg, Anthony Senagore, Brad Champagne, Alexander G. Heriot, Fabien Leblanc, Conor P. Delaney

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    37 Scopus citations

    Abstract

    Background Surgical technique might influence rectal cancer survival, yet international practices for surgical treatment of rectal cancer are poorly described. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey in a cohort of experienced colorectal surgeons representing 123 centers. Results Seventy-one percent responded, 70% are from departments performing more than 50 proctectomies annually. More than 50% defined the rectum as "15 cm from the verge." Seventy-two percent perform laparoscopic proctectomy, 80% use oral bowel preparation, 69% perform high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery, 76% divert stomas as routine for colo-anal anastomosis, and 63% use enhanced recovery protocols. Different practices exist between US and non-US surgeons: 15 cm from the verge to define the rectum (34% vs 59%; P = .03), personally perform laparoscopic resection (82% vs 66%; P = .05), rectal stump washout (36% vs 73%; P = .0001), always drain after surgery (23% vs 42%; P = .03), transanal endoscopic microsurgery for T2N0 in medically unfit patients (39% vs 61%; P = .0001). Conclusions Wide international variations in rectal cancer management make outcome comparisons challenging, and consensus development should be encouraged.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)353-358
    Number of pages6
    JournalAmerican Journal of Surgery
    Volume201
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Mar 2011

    Keywords

    • International Rectal Cancer Study Group
    • International practice
    • Rectal cancer
    • Rectum anatomy
    • Surgical treatment

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Surgery

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'International trends in surgical treatment of rectal cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this