Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
3987654 | European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO) | 2008 | 7 Pages |
AimTo elicit surgery preferences of patients who have experience with either low anterior resection (LAR) or abdominoperineal resection (APR) and its outcomes, to support decision-making in future patients with resectable rectal cancer.MethodsOne hundred and twenty-two patients were interviewed. Surgery preference was assessed in two ways. In the treatment trade-off method, the certainty of a stoma was hypothetically weighed against the risk of incontinence. In the time trade-off method, remaining life expectancy was traded off to avoid a permanent stoma or faecal incontinence.ResultsTo avoid APR, LAR patients accepted a much higher risk of incontinence than APR patients. In fact, 71% of the LAR patients chose LAR if they would certainly suffer monthly incontinence, and still 32% if they would certainly suffer daily incontinence. Nevertheless, APR patients would give up less remaining life years to be without a permanent stoma than LAR patients to be without monthly incontinence.ConclusionsMost patients preferred LAR above APR, even if LAR involved a risk of faecal incontinence. This seems to justify that LAR, if surgically possible, is performed in the first instance. However, since APR patients could live well with a permanent stoma, we recommend clearly informing patients before surgery about the surgical options and their potential outcomes.