We have located links that may give you full text access.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
[Urinary function after pelvic autonomic nerve preservation of laparoscopic radical resection for rectal cancer].
Zhonghua Yi Xue za Zhi [Chinese medical journal] 2009 November 18
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the protection of urinary function after laparoscopic radical resection with pelvic autonomic nerve preservation (PANP) for rectal cancer.
METHODS: Prospectively 139 patients with middle or low rectal cancer receiving surgery during November 2005 to October 2007 were divided into two groups (L-PANP, n = 63; O-PANP, n = 76). The radicalism and safety of L-PANP surgery were analyzed and the effects upon urinary function between the two groups assessed by follow-ups and urodynamic study.
RESULTS: Patients receiving subtypes I and II of L-PANP surgery had less decrease in contraction of bladder than those receiving the same subtype of O-PANP surgery at 10 days post-operation (Z = -2.358, P = 0.018; Z = -2.268, P = 0.033). And no difference was observed in patients receiving subtype III PANP surgery (Z = -1.302, P = 0.237). However, no matter which subtype of PANP surgery, patients of L-PANP group had a better contraction of bladder than those of O-PANP group at 1 month post-operation (P < 0.05). The 1-year survival rate was 98.0% (50/51) in L-PANP group and 96.6% (57/59) in O-PANP group. And no statistical difference was found between them (P = 0.898). Meanwhile, the 1-year relapse rate of pelvic cavity was 3.9% (2/52) in L-PANP group and 5.1% (3/59) in O-PANP group. And no statistical difference was found between them (P = 0.867).
CONCLUSION: As compared with O-PANP surgery, L-PANP surgery shows a superiority in protection of urinary function.
METHODS: Prospectively 139 patients with middle or low rectal cancer receiving surgery during November 2005 to October 2007 were divided into two groups (L-PANP, n = 63; O-PANP, n = 76). The radicalism and safety of L-PANP surgery were analyzed and the effects upon urinary function between the two groups assessed by follow-ups and urodynamic study.
RESULTS: Patients receiving subtypes I and II of L-PANP surgery had less decrease in contraction of bladder than those receiving the same subtype of O-PANP surgery at 10 days post-operation (Z = -2.358, P = 0.018; Z = -2.268, P = 0.033). And no difference was observed in patients receiving subtype III PANP surgery (Z = -1.302, P = 0.237). However, no matter which subtype of PANP surgery, patients of L-PANP group had a better contraction of bladder than those of O-PANP group at 1 month post-operation (P < 0.05). The 1-year survival rate was 98.0% (50/51) in L-PANP group and 96.6% (57/59) in O-PANP group. And no statistical difference was found between them (P = 0.898). Meanwhile, the 1-year relapse rate of pelvic cavity was 3.9% (2/52) in L-PANP group and 5.1% (3/59) in O-PANP group. And no statistical difference was found between them (P = 0.867).
CONCLUSION: As compared with O-PANP surgery, L-PANP surgery shows a superiority in protection of urinary function.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app