Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Impact of pelvic dimensions on anastomotic leak after anterior resection for patients with rectal cancer
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Impact of pelvic dimensions on anastomotic leak after anterior resection for patients with rectal cancer
Do you wish to request the book?
Impact of pelvic dimensions on anastomotic leak after anterior resection for patients with rectal cancer
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Impact of pelvic dimensions on anastomotic leak after anterior resection for patients with rectal cancer
2021
Overview
AimThe impact of pelvis on the development of anastomotic leak (AL) in rectal cancer (RC) patients who underwent anterior resection (AR) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of pelvic dimensions on the risk of AL.MethodsA total of 1058 RC patients undergoing AR from January 2013 to January 2016 were enrolled. Pelvimetric parameters were obtained using abdominopelvic computed tomography scans.ResultsUnivariate analyses showed that pelvic inlet, pelvic outlet, interspinous distance, and intertuberous distance were significantly associated with the risk for AL (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis confirmed that pelvic inlet and intertuberous distance were independent risk factors for AL (P < 0.05). Significant factors from multivariate analysis were assembled into the nomogram A (without pelvic dimensions) and nomogram B (with pelvic dimensions). The area under curve (AUC) of nomogram B was 0.72 (95% CI 0.67–0.77), which was better than the AUC of nomogram A (0.69, [95% CI 0.65–0.74]), but didn’t reach a statistical significance (P = 0.199). Decision curve supported that nomogram B was better than nomogram A.ConclusionPelvic dimensions, specifically pelvic inlet and intertuberous distance, seemed to be independent predictors for postoperative AL in RC patients. Pelvic inlet and intertuberous distance incorporated with preoperative radiotherapy, preoperative albumin, conversion, and tumor diameter in the nomogram might provide a clinical tool for predicting AL.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
