| Title |
Incidence and risk factors for rectovaginal fistula after low anterior resection for rectal cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Colorectal Disease, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00384-015-2340-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jun Watanabe, Mitsuyoshi Ota, Daisuke Kawaguchi, Hidetaka Shima, Shuhei Kaida, Shunichi Osada, Nobuyuki Kamimukai, Noriyuki Kamiya, Atsushi Ishibe, Kazuteru Watanabe, Ryusei Matsuyama, Hirotoshi Akiyama, Yasushi Ichikawa, Mari Oba, Itaru Endo |
| Abstract |
The rectovaginal fistula (RVF) is a rare complication after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for RVF after LAR for rectal cancer. This was a retrospective multi-institution study of 371 female rectal cancer patients who underwent LAR with anastomosis between January 2007 and December 2011. Patient-, tumor-, and surgery-related variables were examined by univariate and multivariate analyses. The overall RVF rate was 3.0 % (11/371). The RVF was diagnosed on median postoperative day 83 (15-766). In 81.8 % (9/11) of the patients, the diagnosis of RVF was made after hospital discharge. Multivariate analysis identified prognostic nutritional index (PNI; odds ratio (OR) 6.97; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.47-33.08; P = 0.015), preoperative chemotherapy (OR 27.31; CI 3.49-213.62; P = 0.002), tumor size (OR 5.90; CI 1.04-33.47; P = 0.045), intraoperative bleeding (OR 13.91; CI 1.34-144.42; P = 0.027), and lateral lymph node dissection (OR 4.92; CI 1.02-23.63; P = 0.045) as independent risk factors for RVF after LAR. Risk factors of RVF were PNI (<45), preoperative chemotherapy, tumor size (≧50 mm), intraoperative bleeding (≧200 ml), and lateral lymph node dissection. Before an operation, obtaining the information about these risk factors is of great importance in LAR for rectal cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 21% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 59% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 August 2015.
All research outputs
#18,422,065
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#1,286
of 1,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,972
of 264,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#30
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,831 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.