Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

A Cross-Sectional Review of Reporting Variation in Postoperative Bowel Dysfunction After Rectal Cancer Surgery

Chapman, Stephen J. M.B.Ch.B.; Bolton, William S. B.Sc. (Hons.); Corrigan, Neil B.Sc. (Hons.); Young, Neville Ph.D.; Jayne, David G. F.R.C.S.

doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000649
Current Status
Buy
SDC

BACKGROUND: Postoperative bowel dysfunction affects quality of life after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery, but the extent of the problem is not clearly defined because of inconsistent outcome measures used to characterize the condition.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess variation in the reporting of postoperative bowel dysfunction and to make recommendations for standardization in future studies. If possible, a quantitative synthesis of bowel dysfunction symptoms was planned.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as the Cochrane Library, were queried systematically between 2004 and 2015.

STUDY SELECTION: The studies selected reported at least 1 component of bowel dysfunction after resection of rectal cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were reporting, measurement, and definition of postoperative 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 (45.3%) of 234 and 61 (26.1%) of 234. 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%)), and the remaining descriptive measures were infrequently defined (56/383 (14.6%)).

LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity in the reporting, measurement, and definition of postoperative bowel dysfunction precluded pooling of results and limited interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation exists in the reporting, measurement, and definition of postoperative bowel dysfunction. These inconsistencies preclude reliable estimates of incidence and meta-analysis. A broadly accepted outcome measure may address this deficit in future studies.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

1 Section of Translational Anaesthesia and Surgery, Leeds Institute of Biological and Clinical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

2 Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text, and links to the digital files are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.dcrjournal.com).

Funding/Support: Design and execution of this study were supported by the Leeds National Institute for Health Research Healthcare Technology Cooperative in Colorectal Therapies.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Stephen J. Chapman and William S. Bolton contributed equally to this work and are joint first authors.

Presented at the meeting of the Society of Academic Research Surgery, London, United Kingdom, January 6 to 7, 2016.

Correspondence: Stephen J. Chapman, M.B.Ch.B., Section of Translational Anaesthesia and Surgery, Leeds Institute of Biological and Clinical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom LS9 7TF. E-mail: stephen.chapman@doctors.org.uk; Twitter: @SJ_Chapman

© 2017 The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons