Functional results and quality of life for patients with very low rectal cancer undergoing coloanal anastomosis or perineal colostomy with colonic muscular graft

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare functional results and quality of life (QoL) of two salvage techniques: coloanal anastomosis (CAA) or perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection for very low rectal cancer.MethodsBetween 1991 and 2001, 50 patients were operated for a very low rectal adenocarcinoma and analyzed after a follow-up greater than one year and because there was no relapse or no treatment, they were included in the analysis. Thirty-eight patients had a CAA, including: straight anastomosis (n = 23), J pouch (n = 10), coloplasty (n = 2) and intersphincteric resection (n = 3). Twelve patients underwent a PC.ResultsVaizey's incontinence score was equivalent for the two groups: CAA 12 (0–22) versus PC 11 (8–13). The only differences were more frequent fractioned stools for the CAA group and increased pad soiling for the PC group. Overall QoL scores (QLQ C-30) were equivalent for CAA and PC.ConclusionsFor very low rectal tumors, the choice of surgical technique must be based on oncologic rather than future functional or QoL criteria, because both approaches seem to provide similar results.