{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025150355385456534, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008747949699289229, 'mean_word_length': 5.120401337792642, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, '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}}
Intervention pathways for low anterior resection syndrome after sphincter-saving rectal cancer surgery: a systematic scoping review.

AIM
Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) has a large impact on patients' quality of life. Several heterogeneous intervention pathways are suggested in the literature. The steps and timing of the different steps in the pathways are unclear. This systematic scoping review aims to map the range of intervention pathways for LARS after sphincter-saving rectal cancer surgery.


METHODS
A search was undertaken on four databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science). Any type of paper describing intervention pathways for patients with LARS following sphincter-saving surgery was included. Excluded were patients with a stoma, no full paper, no intervention pathway and not being written in English or Dutch. The review was registered with Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/JB5H8). Narrative synthesis of the results was performed by charting and summarizing key results.


RESULTS
A total of 373 records were screened and 12 papers were included. There was a high variability among the intervention pathways, including which patients should be included. The number of pathway steps ranged from 2-6. Most intervention pathways were treatment-led. Intervention options ranged from conservative measures to a permanent stoma. Pathway flow was highly variable and sometimes not well described, with different or no timings provided for the start, progression, or end of the pathways. Three studies discussed the use of a nurse to coordinate the pathway.


CONCLUSION
This systematic scoping review shows that despite similarities in treatment options there are variations in which treatments are included, when treatments should be instigated, and even which patients should be treated.