{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04107933950865888, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01973419250906162, 'mean_word_length': 5.288607594936709, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 2, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Impact of Obesity on Operation Performed, Complications, and Long-term Outcomes in Terms of Restoration of Intestinal Continuity for Patients With Mid and Low Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND: The impact of obesity per se on the surgical strategy, ie, sphincter sacrifice (abdominoperineal resection) vs sphincter-preserving resection, outcomes, and long-term maintenance of intestinal continuity has been poorly studied in patients with mid and low rectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes and long-term maintenance of intestinal continuity for obese and nonobese patients treated surgically for mid and low rectal cancers. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study from a prospectively collected database. SETTING: The investigation took place in a high-volume specialized colorectal surgery department. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent curative surgery for mid or low rectal adenocarcinoma at a single institution from 1976 to 2011 were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and nonobese patients were matched 1:2 for age, sex, ASA class, location, and stage of tumor. Demographics, use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, operative and perioperative outcomes, pathology, long-term outcomes including oncologic outcomes, and whether restoration of intestinal continuity was obtained were compared. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven obese patients and 314 nonobese patients were included in the study. The groups were similar for matched characteristics. The use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (p = 0.048) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.0003) rates were higher in obese patients. A similar proportion of nonobese and obese patients underwent sphincter-preserving resection (p > 0.99), and postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.23), 30-day postoperative reoperation (p = 0.83), mortality (p > 0.99), and readmissions (p = 0. 13) were similar. The obese and nonobese groups had similar overall (p = 0.61) and disease-free survival (p = 0.74) at a mean follow-up of 5 years for both groups. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective and nonrandomized nature. CONCLUSION: At a high-volume specialized colorectal unit, proctectomy can be performed in obese patients with similar long-term oncologic outcomes and ability to restore intestinal continuity in comparison with nonobese patients. Proctectomy in obese patients, however, is associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leak in comparison with nonobese patients.