Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

Background: Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients’ p...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Lee, Lawrence [verfasserIn] Trepanier, Maude [verfasserIn] Renaud, Julien [verfasserIn] Liberman, Sender [verfasserIn] Charlebois, Patrick [verfasserIn] Stein, Barry [verfasserIn] Fried, Gerald M. [verfasserIn] Fiore, Julio [verfasserIn] Feldman, Liane S. [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2020

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Surgery - Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1995, 169, Seite 623-628
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:169 ; pages:623-628

DOI / URN:	10.1016/j.surg.2020.07.020

Katalog-ID:	ELV005481767

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	ELV005481767
003	DE-627
005	20230524144432.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230504s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1016/j.surg.2020.07.020 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)ELV005481767
035			\|a (ELSEVIER)S0039-6060(20)30464-5
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rda
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 610 \|q DE-600
084			\|a 44.65 \|2 bkl
100	1		\|a Lee, Lawrence \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer
264		1	\|c 2020
336			\|a nicht spezifiziert \|b zzz \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Background: Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients’ preferences for treatment for low rectal cancer.Methods: Ambulatory patients without colorectal cancer at a single high-volume academic colorectal referral center from September 2019 to March 2020 were included. Patients with prior stoma or malignancy were excluded. Participants were presented with a hypothetic scenario describing a low rectal cancer. A threshold task identified preferences for functional and oncologic outcomes for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection.Results: A total of 123 patients were recruited. Patients preferred abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation if there were more than a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation 4.0) daily bowel movements, 1.9 (standard deviation 2.6) daily episodes of stool incontinence, and 6.5 (standard deviation 3.2) gas incontinence. Abdominoperineal resection was preferred over sphincter preservation in 38% if daily activities were altered owing to fecal urgency. Patients were willing to accept a 10% (interquartile range, 5−25) absolute increase in risk of margin involvement with sphincter preservation to avoid abdominoperineal resection. Abdominoperineal resection was the preferred option overall for 18% of patients.Conclusion: An important proportion of patients would prefer abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation owing to the impairments in anorectal function associated with sphincter preservation. The decision to perform sphincter preservation or abdominoperineal resection should consider how the patients’ value functional outcomes with a low anastomosis.
700	1		\|a Trepanier, Maude \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Renaud, Julien \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Liberman, Sender \|e verfasserin \|0 (orcid)0000-0002-4494-4834 \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Charlebois, Patrick \|e verfasserin \|0 (orcid)0000-0002-4169-3662 \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Stein, Barry \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Fried, Gerald M. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Fiore, Julio \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Feldman, Liane S. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Surgery \|d Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1995 \|g 169, Seite 623-628 \|w (DE-627)315974907 \|w (DE-600)2018278-8 \|w (DE-576)093980949 \|x 1532-7361 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:169 \|g pages:623-628
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_U
912			\|a SYSFLAG_U
912			\|a GBV_ELV
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_32
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_90
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_100
912			\|a GBV_ILN_101
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_165
912			\|a GBV_ILN_224
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2004
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2021
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2027
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2034
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2038
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2044
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2048
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2049
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2050
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2056
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2059
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2061
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2064
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2065
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2068
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2088
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2113
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2118
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2122
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2129
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2143
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2147
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2148
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2152
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2153
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2336
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2470
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2507
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2522
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4035
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4046
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4242
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4251
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4326
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4333
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4334
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4393
936	b	k	\|a 44.65 \|j Chirurgie
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 169 \|h 623-628

Indexfelder

author_variant	l l ll m t mt j r jr s l sl p c pc b s bs g m f gm gmf j f jf l s f ls lsf
matchkey_str	article:15327361:2020----::ainsrfrnefrpicepeevtovruadmnprnars
hierarchy_sort_str	2020
bklnumber	44.65
publishDate	2020
allfields	10.1016/j.surg.2020.07.020 doi (DE-627)ELV005481767 (ELSEVIER)S0039-6060(20)30464-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.65 bkl Lee, Lawrence verfasserin aut Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer 2020 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients’ preferences for treatment for low rectal cancer.Methods: Ambulatory patients without colorectal cancer at a single high-volume academic colorectal referral center from September 2019 to March 2020 were included. Patients with prior stoma or malignancy were excluded. Participants were presented with a hypothetic scenario describing a low rectal cancer. A threshold task identified preferences for functional and oncologic outcomes for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection.Results: A total of 123 patients were recruited. Patients preferred abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation if there were more than a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation 4.0) daily bowel movements, 1.9 (standard deviation 2.6) daily episodes of stool incontinence, and 6.5 (standard deviation 3.2) gas incontinence. Abdominoperineal resection was preferred over sphincter preservation in 38% if daily activities were altered owing to fecal urgency. Patients were willing to accept a 10% (interquartile range, 5−25) absolute increase in risk of margin involvement with sphincter preservation to avoid abdominoperineal resection. Abdominoperineal resection was the preferred option overall for 18% of patients.Conclusion: An important proportion of patients would prefer abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation owing to the impairments in anorectal function associated with sphincter preservation. The decision to perform sphincter preservation or abdominoperineal resection should consider how the patients’ value functional outcomes with a low anastomosis. Trepanier, Maude verfasserin aut Renaud, Julien verfasserin aut Liberman, Sender verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4494-4834 aut Charlebois, Patrick verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4169-3662 aut Stein, Barry verfasserin aut Fried, Gerald M. verfasserin aut Fiore, Julio verfasserin aut Feldman, Liane S. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Surgery Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1995 169, Seite 623-628 (DE-627)315974907 (DE-600)2018278-8 (DE-576)093980949 1532-7361 nnns volume:169 pages:623-628 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_165 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.65 Chirurgie AR 169 623-628
spelling	10.1016/j.surg.2020.07.020 doi (DE-627)ELV005481767 (ELSEVIER)S0039-6060(20)30464-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.65 bkl Lee, Lawrence verfasserin aut Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer 2020 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients’ preferences for treatment for low rectal cancer.Methods: Ambulatory patients without colorectal cancer at a single high-volume academic colorectal referral center from September 2019 to March 2020 were included. Patients with prior stoma or malignancy were excluded. Participants were presented with a hypothetic scenario describing a low rectal cancer. A threshold task identified preferences for functional and oncologic outcomes for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection.Results: A total of 123 patients were recruited. Patients preferred abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation if there were more than a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation 4.0) daily bowel movements, 1.9 (standard deviation 2.6) daily episodes of stool incontinence, and 6.5 (standard deviation 3.2) gas incontinence. Abdominoperineal resection was preferred over sphincter preservation in 38% if daily activities were altered owing to fecal urgency. Patients were willing to accept a 10% (interquartile range, 5−25) absolute increase in risk of margin involvement with sphincter preservation to avoid abdominoperineal resection. Abdominoperineal resection was the preferred option overall for 18% of patients.Conclusion: An important proportion of patients would prefer abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation owing to the impairments in anorectal function associated with sphincter preservation. The decision to perform sphincter preservation or abdominoperineal resection should consider how the patients’ value functional outcomes with a low anastomosis. Trepanier, Maude verfasserin aut Renaud, Julien verfasserin aut Liberman, Sender verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4494-4834 aut Charlebois, Patrick verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4169-3662 aut Stein, Barry verfasserin aut Fried, Gerald M. verfasserin aut Fiore, Julio verfasserin aut Feldman, Liane S. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Surgery Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1995 169, Seite 623-628 (DE-627)315974907 (DE-600)2018278-8 (DE-576)093980949 1532-7361 nnns volume:169 pages:623-628 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_165 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.65 Chirurgie AR 169 623-628
allfields_unstemmed	10.1016/j.surg.2020.07.020 doi (DE-627)ELV005481767 (ELSEVIER)S0039-6060(20)30464-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.65 bkl Lee, Lawrence verfasserin aut Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer 2020 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients’ preferences for treatment for low rectal cancer.Methods: Ambulatory patients without colorectal cancer at a single high-volume academic colorectal referral center from September 2019 to March 2020 were included. Patients with prior stoma or malignancy were excluded. Participants were presented with a hypothetic scenario describing a low rectal cancer. A threshold task identified preferences for functional and oncologic outcomes for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection.Results: A total of 123 patients were recruited. Patients preferred abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation if there were more than a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation 4.0) daily bowel movements, 1.9 (standard deviation 2.6) daily episodes of stool incontinence, and 6.5 (standard deviation 3.2) gas incontinence. Abdominoperineal resection was preferred over sphincter preservation in 38% if daily activities were altered owing to fecal urgency. Patients were willing to accept a 10% (interquartile range, 5−25) absolute increase in risk of margin involvement with sphincter preservation to avoid abdominoperineal resection. Abdominoperineal resection was the preferred option overall for 18% of patients.Conclusion: An important proportion of patients would prefer abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation owing to the impairments in anorectal function associated with sphincter preservation. The decision to perform sphincter preservation or abdominoperineal resection should consider how the patients’ value functional outcomes with a low anastomosis. Trepanier, Maude verfasserin aut Renaud, Julien verfasserin aut Liberman, Sender verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4494-4834 aut Charlebois, Patrick verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4169-3662 aut Stein, Barry verfasserin aut Fried, Gerald M. verfasserin aut Fiore, Julio verfasserin aut Feldman, Liane S. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Surgery Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1995 169, Seite 623-628 (DE-627)315974907 (DE-600)2018278-8 (DE-576)093980949 1532-7361 nnns volume:169 pages:623-628 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_165 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.65 Chirurgie AR 169 623-628
allfieldsGer	10.1016/j.surg.2020.07.020 doi (DE-627)ELV005481767 (ELSEVIER)S0039-6060(20)30464-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.65 bkl Lee, Lawrence verfasserin aut Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer 2020 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients’ preferences for treatment for low rectal cancer.Methods: Ambulatory patients without colorectal cancer at a single high-volume academic colorectal referral center from September 2019 to March 2020 were included. Patients with prior stoma or malignancy were excluded. Participants were presented with a hypothetic scenario describing a low rectal cancer. A threshold task identified preferences for functional and oncologic outcomes for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection.Results: A total of 123 patients were recruited. Patients preferred abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation if there were more than a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation 4.0) daily bowel movements, 1.9 (standard deviation 2.6) daily episodes of stool incontinence, and 6.5 (standard deviation 3.2) gas incontinence. Abdominoperineal resection was preferred over sphincter preservation in 38% if daily activities were altered owing to fecal urgency. Patients were willing to accept a 10% (interquartile range, 5−25) absolute increase in risk of margin involvement with sphincter preservation to avoid abdominoperineal resection. Abdominoperineal resection was the preferred option overall for 18% of patients.Conclusion: An important proportion of patients would prefer abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation owing to the impairments in anorectal function associated with sphincter preservation. The decision to perform sphincter preservation or abdominoperineal resection should consider how the patients’ value functional outcomes with a low anastomosis. Trepanier, Maude verfasserin aut Renaud, Julien verfasserin aut Liberman, Sender verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4494-4834 aut Charlebois, Patrick verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4169-3662 aut Stein, Barry verfasserin aut Fried, Gerald M. verfasserin aut Fiore, Julio verfasserin aut Feldman, Liane S. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Surgery Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1995 169, Seite 623-628 (DE-627)315974907 (DE-600)2018278-8 (DE-576)093980949 1532-7361 nnns volume:169 pages:623-628 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_165 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.65 Chirurgie AR 169 623-628
allfieldsSound	10.1016/j.surg.2020.07.020 doi (DE-627)ELV005481767 (ELSEVIER)S0039-6060(20)30464-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.65 bkl Lee, Lawrence verfasserin aut Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer 2020 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients’ preferences for treatment for low rectal cancer.Methods: Ambulatory patients without colorectal cancer at a single high-volume academic colorectal referral center from September 2019 to March 2020 were included. Patients with prior stoma or malignancy were excluded. Participants were presented with a hypothetic scenario describing a low rectal cancer. A threshold task identified preferences for functional and oncologic outcomes for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection.Results: A total of 123 patients were recruited. Patients preferred abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation if there were more than a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation 4.0) daily bowel movements, 1.9 (standard deviation 2.6) daily episodes of stool incontinence, and 6.5 (standard deviation 3.2) gas incontinence. Abdominoperineal resection was preferred over sphincter preservation in 38% if daily activities were altered owing to fecal urgency. Patients were willing to accept a 10% (interquartile range, 5−25) absolute increase in risk of margin involvement with sphincter preservation to avoid abdominoperineal resection. Abdominoperineal resection was the preferred option overall for 18% of patients.Conclusion: An important proportion of patients would prefer abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation owing to the impairments in anorectal function associated with sphincter preservation. The decision to perform sphincter preservation or abdominoperineal resection should consider how the patients’ value functional outcomes with a low anastomosis. Trepanier, Maude verfasserin aut Renaud, Julien verfasserin aut Liberman, Sender verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4494-4834 aut Charlebois, Patrick verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4169-3662 aut Stein, Barry verfasserin aut Fried, Gerald M. verfasserin aut Fiore, Julio verfasserin aut Feldman, Liane S. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Surgery Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1995 169, Seite 623-628 (DE-627)315974907 (DE-600)2018278-8 (DE-576)093980949 1532-7361 nnns volume:169 pages:623-628 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_165 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.65 Chirurgie AR 169 623-628
language	English
source	Enthalten in Surgery 169, Seite 623-628 volume:169 pages:623-628
sourceStr	Enthalten in Surgery 169, Seite 623-628 volume:169 pages:623-628
format_phy_str_mv	Article
bklname	Chirurgie
institution	findex.gbv.de
dewey-raw	610
isfreeaccess_bool	false
container_title	Surgery
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Lee, Lawrence @@aut@@ Trepanier, Maude @@aut@@ Renaud, Julien @@aut@@ Liberman, Sender @@aut@@ Charlebois, Patrick @@aut@@ Stein, Barry @@aut@@ Fried, Gerald M. @@aut@@ Fiore, Julio @@aut@@ Feldman, Liane S. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	315974907
dewey-sort	3610
id	ELV005481767
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV005481767</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230524144432.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230504s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.surg.2020.07.020</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV005481767</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0039-6060(20)30464-5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lee, Lawrence</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients’ preferences for treatment for low rectal cancer.Methods: Ambulatory patients without colorectal cancer at a single high-volume academic colorectal referral center from September 2019 to March 2020 were included. Patients with prior stoma or malignancy were excluded. Participants were presented with a hypothetic scenario describing a low rectal cancer. A threshold task identified preferences for functional and oncologic outcomes for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection.Results: A total of 123 patients were recruited. Patients preferred abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation if there were more than a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation 4.0) daily bowel movements, 1.9 (standard deviation 2.6) daily episodes of stool incontinence, and 6.5 (standard deviation 3.2) gas incontinence. Abdominoperineal resection was preferred over sphincter preservation in 38% if daily activities were altered owing to fecal urgency. Patients were willing to accept a 10% (interquartile range, 5−25) absolute increase in risk of margin involvement with sphincter preservation to avoid abdominoperineal resection. Abdominoperineal resection was the preferred option overall for 18% of patients.Conclusion: An important proportion of patients would prefer abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation owing to the impairments in anorectal function associated with sphincter preservation. The decision to perform sphincter preservation or abdominoperineal resection should consider how the patients’ value functional outcomes with a low anastomosis.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Trepanier, Maude</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Renaud, Julien</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Liberman, Sender</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-4494-4834</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Charlebois, Patrick</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-4169-3662</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stein, Barry</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fried, Gerald M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fiore, Julio</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Feldman, Liane S.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Surgery</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1995</subfield><subfield code="g">169, Seite 623-628</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)315974907</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2018278-8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)093980949</subfield><subfield code="x">1532-7361</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:169</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:623-628</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_165</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="j">Chirurgie</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">169</subfield><subfield code="h">623-628</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Lee, Lawrence
spellingShingle	Lee, Lawrence ddc 610 bkl 44.65 Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer
authorStr	Lee, Lawrence
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)315974907
format	electronic Article
dewey-ones	610 - Medicine & health
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	elsevier
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1532-7361
topic_title	610 DE-600 44.65 bkl Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer
topic	ddc 610 bkl 44.65
topic_unstemmed	ddc 610 bkl 44.65
topic_browse	ddc 610 bkl 44.65
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Surgery
hierarchy_parent_id	315974907
dewey-tens	610 - Medicine & health
hierarchy_top_title	Surgery
isfreeaccess_txt	false
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)315974907 (DE-600)2018278-8 (DE-576)093980949
title	Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer
ctrlnum	(DE-627)ELV005481767 (ELSEVIER)S0039-6060(20)30464-5
title_full	Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer
author_sort	Lee, Lawrence
journal	Surgery
journalStr	Surgery
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	false
dewey-hundreds	600 - Technology
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2020
contenttype_str_mv	zzz
container_start_page	623
author_browse	Lee, Lawrence Trepanier, Maude Renaud, Julien Liberman, Sender Charlebois, Patrick Stein, Barry Fried, Gerald M. Fiore, Julio Feldman, Liane S.
container_volume	169
class	610 DE-600 44.65 bkl
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Lee, Lawrence
doi_str_mv	10.1016/j.surg.2020.07.020
normlink	(ORCID)0000-0002-4494-4834 (ORCID)0000-0002-4169-3662
normlink_prefix_str_mv	(orcid)0000-0002-4494-4834 (orcid)0000-0002-4169-3662
dewey-full	610
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer
title_auth	Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer
abstract	Background: Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients’ preferences for treatment for low rectal cancer.Methods: Ambulatory patients without colorectal cancer at a single high-volume academic colorectal referral center from September 2019 to March 2020 were included. Patients with prior stoma or malignancy were excluded. Participants were presented with a hypothetic scenario describing a low rectal cancer. A threshold task identified preferences for functional and oncologic outcomes for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection.Results: A total of 123 patients were recruited. Patients preferred abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation if there were more than a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation 4.0) daily bowel movements, 1.9 (standard deviation 2.6) daily episodes of stool incontinence, and 6.5 (standard deviation 3.2) gas incontinence. Abdominoperineal resection was preferred over sphincter preservation in 38% if daily activities were altered owing to fecal urgency. Patients were willing to accept a 10% (interquartile range, 5−25) absolute increase in risk of margin involvement with sphincter preservation to avoid abdominoperineal resection. Abdominoperineal resection was the preferred option overall for 18% of patients.Conclusion: An important proportion of patients would prefer abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation owing to the impairments in anorectal function associated with sphincter preservation. The decision to perform sphincter preservation or abdominoperineal resection should consider how the patients’ value functional outcomes with a low anastomosis.
abstractGer	Background: Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients’ preferences for treatment for low rectal cancer.Methods: Ambulatory patients without colorectal cancer at a single high-volume academic colorectal referral center from September 2019 to March 2020 were included. Patients with prior stoma or malignancy were excluded. Participants were presented with a hypothetic scenario describing a low rectal cancer. A threshold task identified preferences for functional and oncologic outcomes for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection.Results: A total of 123 patients were recruited. Patients preferred abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation if there were more than a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation 4.0) daily bowel movements, 1.9 (standard deviation 2.6) daily episodes of stool incontinence, and 6.5 (standard deviation 3.2) gas incontinence. Abdominoperineal resection was preferred over sphincter preservation in 38% if daily activities were altered owing to fecal urgency. Patients were willing to accept a 10% (interquartile range, 5−25) absolute increase in risk of margin involvement with sphincter preservation to avoid abdominoperineal resection. Abdominoperineal resection was the preferred option overall for 18% of patients.Conclusion: An important proportion of patients would prefer abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation owing to the impairments in anorectal function associated with sphincter preservation. The decision to perform sphincter preservation or abdominoperineal resection should consider how the patients’ value functional outcomes with a low anastomosis.
abstract_unstemmed	Background: Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients’ preferences for treatment for low rectal cancer.Methods: Ambulatory patients without colorectal cancer at a single high-volume academic colorectal referral center from September 2019 to March 2020 were included. Patients with prior stoma or malignancy were excluded. Participants were presented with a hypothetic scenario describing a low rectal cancer. A threshold task identified preferences for functional and oncologic outcomes for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection.Results: A total of 123 patients were recruited. Patients preferred abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation if there were more than a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation 4.0) daily bowel movements, 1.9 (standard deviation 2.6) daily episodes of stool incontinence, and 6.5 (standard deviation 3.2) gas incontinence. Abdominoperineal resection was preferred over sphincter preservation in 38% if daily activities were altered owing to fecal urgency. Patients were willing to accept a 10% (interquartile range, 5−25) absolute increase in risk of margin involvement with sphincter preservation to avoid abdominoperineal resection. Abdominoperineal resection was the preferred option overall for 18% of patients.Conclusion: An important proportion of patients would prefer abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation owing to the impairments in anorectal function associated with sphincter preservation. The decision to perform sphincter preservation or abdominoperineal resection should consider how the patients’ value functional outcomes with a low anastomosis.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_165 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393
title_short	Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer
remote_bool	true
author2	Trepanier, Maude Renaud, Julien Liberman, Sender Charlebois, Patrick Stein, Barry Fried, Gerald M. Fiore, Julio Feldman, Liane S.
author2Str	Trepanier, Maude Renaud, Julien Liberman, Sender Charlebois, Patrick Stein, Barry Fried, Gerald M. Fiore, Julio Feldman, Liane S.
ppnlink	315974907
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	false
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1016/j.surg.2020.07.020
up_date	2024-07-06T18:06:58.644Z
_version_	1803853987729899520
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV005481767</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230524144432.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230504s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.surg.2020.07.020</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV005481767</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0039-6060(20)30464-5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lee, Lawrence</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients’ preferences for treatment for low rectal cancer.Methods: Ambulatory patients without colorectal cancer at a single high-volume academic colorectal referral center from September 2019 to March 2020 were included. Patients with prior stoma or malignancy were excluded. Participants were presented with a hypothetic scenario describing a low rectal cancer. A threshold task identified preferences for functional and oncologic outcomes for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection.Results: A total of 123 patients were recruited. Patients preferred abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation if there were more than a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation 4.0) daily bowel movements, 1.9 (standard deviation 2.6) daily episodes of stool incontinence, and 6.5 (standard deviation 3.2) gas incontinence. Abdominoperineal resection was preferred over sphincter preservation in 38% if daily activities were altered owing to fecal urgency. Patients were willing to accept a 10% (interquartile range, 5−25) absolute increase in risk of margin involvement with sphincter preservation to avoid abdominoperineal resection. Abdominoperineal resection was the preferred option overall for 18% of patients.Conclusion: An important proportion of patients would prefer abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation owing to the impairments in anorectal function associated with sphincter preservation. The decision to perform sphincter preservation or abdominoperineal resection should consider how the patients’ value functional outcomes with a low anastomosis.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Trepanier, Maude</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Renaud, Julien</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Liberman, Sender</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-4494-4834</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Charlebois, Patrick</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-4169-3662</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stein, Barry</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fried, Gerald M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fiore, Julio</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Feldman, Liane S.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Surgery</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1995</subfield><subfield code="g">169, Seite 623-628</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)315974907</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2018278-8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)093980949</subfield><subfield code="x">1532-7361</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:169</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:623-628</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_165</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="j">Chirurgie</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">169</subfield><subfield code="h">623-628</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.3999157

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Patients’ preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?